Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Education in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Education in the United States

Since its last nomination, many changes have been made to the article, most by me. I addressed two lists of concerns and there are many inline citations. The article is long, but I feel that it's simple to skip over sections without losing anything. I hope it meets everyone's standards.--naryathegreat | (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Object: The image Image:Harvard05commencement.jpg is tagged as "fair use". There's nothing particularly special about it, so it can't be used under Wikipedia's fair use policy. --Carnildo 00:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The image has been replaced with a free one.--naryathegreat | (talk) 02:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose
  • See image argument above. I'm sure we can find a free pic for that section.
  • History sections looks short to me.
    • Actually, several too short sections (including 2 single-paragrapph ones)
  • Education infobox should be in top right corner, not current template. I have fixed this (By adding clear:right; to {{Life in the United States}}, it'll automatically move directly under a preceding right-floated template)
  • TOC is awfully long: it takes the whole screen in a 1024x800 resolution
• Circeus 00:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I replaced the image, and you moved the infobox, which I'm okay with. However, I'm not sure how to make the TOC smaller, I don't really see how to eliminating structure in the article will make the article itself better.--naryathegreat | (talk) 02:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Object - Early objections taken care of. More objections below. As per above. There could also use some additional inline references... there are very few, entire swaths of the article have no notes stating where the information comes from. Fieari 01:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you have specific points you wish to see cited? I was under the impression that cites aren't necessary for things which are common knowledge.--naryathegreat | (talk) 02:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, what may be common knowledge in one part of the world, might not be in another. I'm American myself, but the tone of the article is written for someone from another country like England (as it should be), for whom this ISN'T common knowledge, and thus must be sourced.

• • The "Grades" section has no sources at all, needs at least one source.
  • In "Primary and Secondary Education", Opposition to homeschooling comes from varied sources... definitely needs a source, and preferably some direct quotes.
  • The "Middle School" section should have at least one source.
  • The "High School" section is rife with needs for sources. Seperate campus for freshmen, not specializing yet, passing grade (also uses weasel words), minimum course sequences (should be easy to source), additional options like honors/gifted/AP, extracricular activities (competition between groups, major games for HS, greater interest, other clubs)...
    • Furthermore, you'll note that the High School section is much more detailed than the Elementary and Middle School sections. This creates an unbalanced feel to the article... those other sections should preferably be as detailed. Once this is done, however, the article may become too long... if that's the case, all three sections should be split to their own articles and better summarized in the main article per summary style.
  • No Child Left Behind Act should be sourced... wikilinking does not count; the article should be self sufficient, and that includes sourcing.
  • Criticism for midterms/finals should be sourced, as should attempts to ban them.
    • Also, potential POV here; article seems biased against midterms/finals. If attempts to ban them have been unsuccessful, that means there's definitely a mainstream prevelant opposing view here, which should be covered in more depth than the criticism.
  • SAT/ACT information needs to be sourced.
  • "Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004" must be sourced, esspecially since the wikilink is red. Even if the wikilink were blue, that's not enough.
  • Colleges requiring SAT scores should be sourced.
  • The types of degrees should be sourced.
  • "Primary and Secondary Education" should have at least one source.
  • Etc etc etc etc etc etc... I'm getting a little tired of looking for places that need sources. Basically, every section needs at least one source. Specific facts, laws, complaints, statements of opinion, these all need sources. Fieari 16:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Lots of improvements. Good work on the sourcing! I still have a couple little issues, however.
      • Some of the comments on homeschooling still seem a little POV to me, in particular, "For example, a creationist parent could remove a child from public school because the school's biology curriculum teaches evolution by natural selection." is a loaded statement, in that this is implied to be a bad thing. Is this a direct quote from anyone, because if so, it sould be attributed. Additionally, as someone who was homeschooled through highschool myself, I happen to know that advocates of homeschooling have fairly detailed counters to every one of those common objections. Now, I understand that this isn't an article on homeschooling, but the tone of the section seems biased against it... I'd reccomend trimming it down, and finding somewhere to merge the removed information to and linking there for a more detailed discussion. There's the potential for a full article there.
      • I'm finding in general that the article is getting a little too long. I think some splitting may need to be done, according to Summary Style. In addition to a History of Education in the United States article, you could have a Primary and Secondary Education in the United States article (for a major pruning of this one, which would cut down the size nicely and still keep all the information in wikipedia, which is important), possibly even a Public vs. private schools article... "Education in the United States" is a -hugely- broad topic, with scads and scads to write about, and it all should be written about, but not all in the same article. Summary Style is key, so that a person can find the information they're looking for.
      • Compare what is described in the Lead to what is actually in the article. A third of the lead is dedicated to talking about literacy, whereas literacy is barely touched on at all in the article itself. The article consists of
      • This will also help with comprehensiveness, which this article currently lacks. As much as is written here, I highly suspect that more could be written. It doesn't look that way now, simply because all this information that should be in seperate articles (in my opinion) is all mashed together in one place... but once you start splitting, I think it'll become evident that more topics could be discussed here... such as the literacy issue that takes up so much of the lead. The lead also talks of accreditation... that should be discussed (in summary style, linking to the main article). The article could also discuss U.S. territory schooling, such as Puerto Rico, mentioned in the lead but never touched on in the article. A discussion on how the Department of Education works could be included... in Summary Style, with a link to the main article.
    • The article has come a long way so far, but I think it still has a ways to go. Fieari 16:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• ObjectNeutral. The history section has nothing about the rise of public education, which started in the early 19th century became significant in the late 19th century, with high schools gradually replacing academies. A better distinction needs to be made between public and private education, and there needs to be data or at least a qualitative description of the scale of public vs. private education, and information about historical gender differences in education level. It also needs discussion of the changing curriculum and the secularization of schools. For sources, try Shaping of the American High School and Origins of the American High School.--ragesoss 03:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think what you're asking for is a little outside the range of a Wikipedia article. I'm not writing History of Education in the United States, after all. As for your other points, 1/4 of the article makes up a public v. private section, and the actual percentage of students attending each type is perfectly clear in the article.--naryathegreat | (talk) 04:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

But that's exactly the point. You can't fully discuss education in the United States without understanding its history. Because of this you have to either cover it satisfactorily in the main article, or write that History of Education in the United States article and do a split-off summary in the main. Either way it needs to be written to fill out a subject this broad. Staxringold 13:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I added 4 paragraphs to the history section; what do you think about it now? I'm working on cites for it, but please consider the content.--naryathegreat | (talk) 23:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

You've done well with the history section at a very basic level; I'm not willing to support to article yet, but I'm withdrawing my objection. I would like to see more integration of the social and cultural factors involved in the rise of public schooling (and the gradual decline of academies), and still it needs something about the religious dimensions of public education, which have been very important throughout (for example, the lively debates in the last decades of the 19th century over state support for sectarian schools vs. nonsectarian religious schools vs. nonreligious schools). Some mention of the 20th centuries issues like creation/evolution, sex education, home economics (and other Progressive Era education reforms), etc., would also help.--ragesoss 07:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Object as per above, but especially due to that history section. Staxringold 12:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Also more tables is needed, one at least :) Brandmeister 13:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I converted the bulleted list at the beginning to a table, I hope that helps allay your fears :)--naryathegreat | (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Conditional support. I think the history could be in the beginning and the further reading expanded (to about 5 or more works). Brandmeister 17:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

While I can't agree with you about the history section (I doubt anyone is going to come to the article wanting to read the history first), I definitely see your point about the further reading section; I'll incorporate the suggestions from ragesoss.--naryathegreat | (talk) 04:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Object I am blanket objecting all nominations that fail to use the new cite format. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • While technically an "actionable" objection, since something could be done to fix it, "Uses the very latest in mediawiki formatting" isn't actually anything remotely close to an FA criteria. It has references, these references are linked inline, are in their own section... that's about what was required. Not that this particular article is ready to be FA right now (see above objections), just that this point of contention here is silly. Fieari 15:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Withdrawing my oppose, consider it a strongly worded suggestion. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I changed it over; I hope it meets your expectations.--naryathegreat | (talk) 23:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• A comment: since you are already touching the coverage of the US education in the works of art, I think you should somehow mention the Up the Down Staircase (novel) in it (actually, your nomination prompted me to look it up on the WP and to discover it in a pretty sad state, which, in turn, lead to some edits on the book author's WP page, so I came back to look at your article only now :-) ...) --BACbKA 16:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Ummmmm...thanks I guess--naryathegreat | (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Object per above. In addition, starting off with a bulleted list should be fixed. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I created a table instead--better?--naryathegreat | (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)