Industrial Revolution was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Jan Oklum (2010-03-17). "Delvis bestått for Wikipedia (Partly passed for Wikipedia)". Bergens Tidende. Archived from the original on 2010-03-17. "(Norwegian)Camilla Brautaset, førsteamanuensis i historie ved Universitetet i Bergen [...] Den engelske Wikipedia-artikkelen om den industrielle revolusjon er for eksempel skrevet ut fra et britisk perspektiv på historien, mener Brautaset. Camilla Brautaset, associate professor in History at University of Bergen [...] the English article about the Industrial Revolution has a British view on the history, says Brautaset"
Industrial Revolution has been listed as a level-3 vital article in History. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Citizendium Porting, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia articles by working in any useful content from their Citizendium counterparts. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The Bridgewater Canal was NOT the first successful canal, not even the first successful canal constructed during the Industrial Revolution. That title goes to the Sankey Canal, as already articled by Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
The term Industrial Age is becoming more prominant to cover the period from the Industrial Revolution to near modern times. The Industrial Age disamg page seems inappropriate. Let's discuss the creation of an Industrial Age article, keeping in mind that it does not supplant the Industrial Revolution, which is a historially established term. As far as creditability to the use of the term Industrial Age, even the NIST website now uses the term. —fcsuper(How's That?, That's How!)(ExclusionisticImmediatist )— 20:53, 29 September 2010, Wednesday (2 years, 3 months, 13 days ago) (UTC+1)
Yet another English article that has been interfered with by Indians, they keep editing English and British articles with the most inconsequential and reaching statements suggesting all achievements and inventions lead to India, next we'll probably see how it was India who first landed on the moon! For some reason Indian editors keep plastering Indian article content into any article they can find, most of it really reaching especially from so-called Indian communist 'experts'. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 22:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Unless there are specific examples of inadequately sourced content here, the above seems designed to read like an offensive rant. I'd suggest providing specific suggestions as to how the article can be improved. JNW (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
China - The 3rd Industrial Revolution (in the midst)
I have been travelling through the cities in China, from Beijing to Xiamen and I truly can see how they (approx.1.26 billion people) are in the midst of causing what I believe will be considered the 3rd "global scale" industrial revolution. With first access to Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan and Korea, and access to the European Union and markets in North and South America, they are revolutionizing the world's "free" markets with products. It is getting harder and harder to find any industrially made product that does not have "Made in China" on it. I hope someone with in-depth business analytic experience (and Wikipedia editing expertise) updates the topic on "Industrial Revolution". Billgdiaz (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
What you are discussing is industrialization, which is not the same thing as the Industrial Revolution.Phmoreno (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I read through the article and realized the author didn't touch upon women in the workforce. So i did some research and went into depth about the lifestyle of women in the industrial revolution. In the first industrial revolution, employers often preferred women workers over men. Women adapted quicker and more easily to textile machines and employers were able to pay women less for the same work. However, for women, working in factories ended up creating more problems not only for their own health but also their families. Their new jobs took them away from their children and homes for 12 hours or more a day. After working for long hours they would return to crowded and unhealthy slum tenements too feed, clean and clothe their families. This made family life even harder for poor rural cottagers, especially while living in the grimy conditions of the industrial age. I've also came across how working in factories promoted many health risks. Workers would suffer many accidents from machines, some would lose a finger, a limb or even their own lives. Machines in the industrial age had no safety devices, making machines even more dangerous to be around. The heavy dust from coal destroyed the lungs of miners and textile workers constantly inhaled air filled with lint. If any of these workers ever got sick or injured, they would lose their jobs. This information is crucial during this time period and someone has more in depth info can update this topic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morganbhs (talk • contribs) 18:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
This article is not some kind of social commentary; it's about technology and economics. Social commentary on the Industrial Revolution should be a separate article.Phmoreno (talk) 13:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
This article has a long info box and a long TOC, resulting in excesively large blocks of white space - at least it does on my browser. Is there something that can be done about this? I've tried re-ordering things in the lead but it doesn't help. --Roly (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Not quite sure where you are seeing the whitespace. Is it after the infobox, or between the box and the TOC? Also what is your display resolution as that might help.--SabreBD (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Most of the area to the left of the info box and to the right of the TOC is blank. If it's not obvious to you then it's probably a combination of my browser and display. I'll leave it to see if anybody else says anything.--Roly (talk) 23:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
OK I don't think I am quite seeing what you are, but I think I get the idea. I think the best solution is to remove the navbox (which just doubles for a navbox footer and only deals with one aspect of the topic) and move one of the pictures to the top. We can then limit the toc to level 2 headings (which is recommended when they get this big). I will have to remind myself how to do that. If anyone objects I am happy to discuss it here.--SabreBD (talk) 11:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
There are several reader comments suggesting more pictures; however, there is no explanation of what pictures are wanted. There is a video of mule spinning and of fly shuttle weaving, which are necessary to see how these machines operated. Photography did not exist during the Industrial Revolution and not many paintings showing related subjects, even counting those made after the period.Phmoreno (talk) 14:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Important missing section: The Industrial revolution's impact on biodiversity & global temperatures
The climate change debate concerns industrialization, which is a different concept from the Industrial Revolution. Also, the change from hunter-gathers to farming is not related to industrialization, except as a distant precursor.Phmoreno (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
The article on Derby says " As home to Lombe's Mill, the first factory in the world, Derby is considered the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution." This article says the revolution started much later even though the world's first factory is a clear indication of the beginning. (And the article Lombe's Mill doesn't even mention the Industrial Revolution!) --Espoo (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Lombe's mill was not the first factory. That title would probably go to one of the ancient Chinese factories that made weapons. The significance of Lombe's mill is that it was a large scale example of a factory with complex machinery and that it set an example for how a mechanized process could work. Lombe was an industrial spy who learned the silk technology in Italy, where it was kept secret, so we will never know the extent of the industry there. Because Lombe's factory was a single example that occurred before the great surge in production and economic growth that began in the last quarter of the 18th century, it does not mark the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.Phmoreno (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, could you please edit those two articles accordingly? I can't agree with you completely though. According to the source provided, that factory was the first fully mechanized factory in the world. The IR would seem to by definition consist of the creation of many fully mechanized factories, so the establishment of the first one is very definitely the beginning of the IR from the perspective of technology and history. Other disciplines are more interested in the surge in production and economic growth that occurred on the national and international levels later due to the establishment of many more fully mechanized factories, but the first one and its date should most definitely be mentioned in the intro and the timeline of the IR article. (It of course caused "only" a local but historically very significant surge in production and economic growth.) --Espoo (talk) 04:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Besides Lombes mill there are a few developments, such as crucible steel, that predate the period most historians call the Industrial Revolution. I am planning to work on the causes section and may list those there.Phmoreno (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
The biggest problem with Lomb's mill is that it went out of business long before the IR began. By contrast, the cotton spinning and weaving industry was the largest industry in the UK in terms of employment and capital by the end of the IR. The cotton industry had also seen productivity of spinning improve by 1000 times, weaving by about 40 times. The puddling process and rolling mill were extremely important processes. Great improvements were made in the steam engine, causing a tremendous increase in installed steam power. Lomb's mill, by contrast, went nowhere.Phmoreno (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Had anyone predicted the Industrial Revolution before it started?
If anyone here knows anything about it, we may be able to hunt down a source and add the information to the article. This is fairly interesting to me personally. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 05:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
It's doubtful that anyone could have predicted it and it wasn't until it was well underway that it was recognized that a change had occurred. Hardly any of the later great innovations were appreciated until they were well underway. For example,David Ames Wells devoted only a sentence or two to electrification in 1891 when he wrote Recent Economic Changes. Another example is that Henry Ford and his financial officer had been turned down by so many banks that the financial officer sat down on a curb and wept.Phmoreno (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I wanted to add that the Industrial Revolution took place over two generations, which made it difficult to recognize the extent of progress at the beginning, especially since it accelerated after 1800. By the end, which I consider the depression of the late 1830s, the textile market was saturated and the next phase of industrialization was to bring continued growth.Phmoreno (talk) 01:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
It's all so amazing to think about this, and there are so many implications to point out, but I'd like to avoid spamming the talk page. Perhaps the most significant implication is the one pertaining to the debate within philosophy of history on whether it is individuals or collective, impersonal processes that drive societal progress. It seems that political parties and movements of the time, if they addressed the subject of industrialization and mechanization at all, were more likely to oppose it than support it. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 01:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Your comments reminded me that I have some good material to add regarding causes of the Industrial Revolution. Perhaps time will allow me to do some editing in the next few weeks.Phmoreno (talk) 02:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)