Talk:Industrial Revolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Industrial Revolution has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject History of Science (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Sociology (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject History (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Politics (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital / Supplemental
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
WikiProject Citizendium Porting    (Inactive)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Citizendium Porting, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
 
WikiProject Economics (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
News This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:
  • 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  (details)

Industrial Age[edit]

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!) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) 20:53, 29 September 2010, Wednesday (2 years, 3 months, 13 days ago) (UTC+1)

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here, here, and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Child Labour[edit]

This section contains a lot of good information, however, there are some gramatical error that could be improved upon. There are multiple misplaced commas that could be erased to help the information flow more smoothly. There are also some run on sentences that could be split into separate sentences with the deletion of semi colons and the addition of a period. One case of a misused italization was present. Overall this section is useful to readers looking for an overview of child labour during the industrial revolution. With slight improvements to the the grammar and punctuation, the information would be much clearer and easily read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accane88 (talkcontribs) 00:16, 17 September 2014

I have removed what I consider to be four optional commas, although I have added a further two, which I considered necessary. I could only find one example where the use of a semi-colon could have been avoided but this required the addition of another comma. The other uses, in my opinion, were quite correct. I could not find any italics in this section. Perhaps you meant quotation marks? I personally didn't find the section difficult to read and think that converting it to short staccato sentences would not be an improvement. While I enjoy the irony, might I suggest that, if you are going to criticise other people's writing, you double check what you have written yourself. Best regards--Ykraps (talk) 08:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
It really wasn't meant to be, but on a second reading, that comment comes across as rude so I have struck it and apologise if it was taken the wrong way.--Ykraps (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2014[edit]

HI 162.253.233.65 (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 20:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Nominated for "good article" status[edit]

I am nominating this article because if is of high importance to many fields. I am sure there are some unresolved issues, but its time to get a critical review and list of problems so they can be addressed.Phmoreno (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Industrial Revolution/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 3family6 (talk · contribs) 21:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    Earwig's tool did not find any copyright or close paraphrasing violations, apart from a Wikipedia mirror.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
    "In half century following the invention of the fundamental machine tools the machine industry would become the largest segment of the economy, by value added, in the U.S." - a lone sentence, should be merged into another paragraph. Also, it needs a citation.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    "Canals were the first technology to allow bulk materials to be easily transported across the country, coal being a common commodity. A single canal horse could pull a load dozens of times larger than a cart at a faster pace.[68][69]" - which country? Britain? This should be merged into the next paragraph as well. Actually, this sentence would be an excellent intro for the section: "Britain's canal network, together with its surviving mill buildings, is one of the most enduring features of the early Industrial Revolution to be seen in Britain."--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    This was partly fixed, but the sentence "Canals were the first technology to allow bulk materials to be easily transported across the country, coal being a common commodity" is still out of place.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    "...commercial success its sponsors had hoped for and signalled canals as an dying mode..." - should be "a" dying mode.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    This sentence - "The Industrial Revolution led to a population increase but the chances of surviving childhood did not improve throughout the Industrial Revolution, although infant mortality rates were reduced markedly." - conflicts with this one in a later section: "During the Industrial Revolution, the life expectancy of children increased dramatically." The second sentence mentioned here should be changed to the life expectancy of infants, as that is what the paragraph bears out.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    "But it is also pointed out by many researchers, with its Sillon industriel, 'Especially in the Haine, Sambre and Meuse valleys, between the Borinage and Liège, (...) there was a huge industrial development based on coal-mining and iron-making...'.[114]" - I found this confusing. There is a use of possessive phrase, but I don't know who did the possessing. What had Sillon industriel? The researchers?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    "Even if Belgium is the second industrial country after Britain, the effect of the industrial revolution there was very different." - conflicting tenses. Try "even if Belgium was... ."--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    "There were two main values that really drove the industrial revolution in Britain. These values were self-interest and an entrepreneurial spirit." - Sloppy wording, and no source attributed to the statement. Perhaps something like "The values of self-interest and entrepreneurial spirit are considered the driving force of the industrial revolution in Britain." This also needs to be explained by providing examples.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    "(This point is also made in Hilaire Belloc's The Servile State.)" - book title should be italicized.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    The section on Sweden uses bold text inappropriately. Use of italics for those terms would fall within the MOS.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    The lead section for this article should not need citations. Everything mentioned in the lead should be discussed in more detail in the article body. If there is anything in the lead which is not discussed in the article body, it needs to be elaborated within the article, all the citations provided there, and the lead will merely summarize that content.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    Citation format is inconsistent in the citation list, and some are incomplete or otherwise incorrect. For instance: Ludwig Fritz Haber, The chemical industry during the nineteenth century (1958) (missing page numbers); "Industrial Revolution," New World Encyclopedia, <http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Industrial_Revolution> (bare url); The Industrial Revolution by Pat Hudson, pg. 198. Books.google.com. 1992. (not consistent with format, missing info). There are many more instances like those which I just mentioned.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    This URL - http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_701509067/Scientific_Revolution.html - is a dead link.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    There's a cite error notice at the end of the citation list: "Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Landes" is not used in the content (see the help page)."--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:
    "Maudslay's lathe was called one of history's most important inventions." - a statement like this needs a citation.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    "Living conditions during the Industrial Revolution varied from splendour for factory owners to squalor for workers.[citation needed]" - cite needed tag.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    There are numerous sections that do not have any citations - there should be at least one citation per paragraph.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    C. No original research:
    All content is attributable to reliable sources.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    This is a massive topic with numerous aspects to it, but the article manages to focus on the major points.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    B. Focused:
    Stays broad in its coverage.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    Neutral point of view, no bias. Fairly presents the academic arguments and disagreements.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    The article has been stable for several months at least.
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Licensing checks out. Some needed to be updated for US use, and I took that into my own hands as it is a minor issue and won't bias my review. There seems to have been a legal dispute involving images taken from the National Portrait Gallery, London, including the James Watt image used in this article, but that dispute seems to have fizzled out, and use of the image is within Wikimedia policy.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Images are useful and the captions relevant. However, the caption for the Newcomen atmospheric engine initially calls it the "first practical engine." It should specify that it is the first practical steam engine, as engines in general have been around for thousands of years.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
    This caption still hasn't been changed. Phmoreno, your change to the prose that clarified what type of steam engine Newcomb designed was a good change. However, my comment here was about the photo caption.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  7. Overall: Still needs some significant work, but not bad considering the size and scope of this article.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pass or Fail:
    All issues resolved. Pass.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment[edit]

First off, this sentence is brilliant: "...the region geared up to become the 2nd industrial power in the world after Britain." Nice pun, that. Second, I'm slowly slogging through this one. It's a very large article, so it will take me quite a while (as the timestamps on my signatures suggest).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I did get through this tonight. See my comments in the review.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The nominator contacted me on my talk page and asked for some time to work on this article, as they have a project they are working on. I have granted this request, as they have already edited some of this article based on my feedback, which indicates that they are serious about getting this review passed. As long as they are committed to working on this article, I do not mind granting them extra time to work on it.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2015[edit]

lie

198.209.0.254 (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Kharkiv07Talk 18:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2015[edit]

Hi, I noticed a spelling error, in the line "In the late 17th and early 18th centuries the British government passed a series of Calico Acts in order to protect the domestic woolen industry from the increasing amounts of cotton fabric imported from India" in this line the spelling 'woolen' is American English, as the article is in British English the spelling should be 'woollen'. 86.24.250.187 (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Jamietw (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Lower case / upper case[edit]

The phrase "industrial revolution" is capitalized (Industrial Revolution) most, but not all, of the time in this article. IMO it should be lower case throughout, as it indeed is in the direct quotes. It should in any case be consistent. --Hordaland (talk) 04:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

move to lowercase spelling[edit]

According to Wikipedia's MOS, terms and article titles should usually be lowercased, even and especially when reliable sources disagree -- that's the whole point of making and using a MOS. Since many if not most carefully edited texts on this topic use lower case, including many of the article's sources, we should not waste any time discussing this and the term should be lowercased and the article should be moved. (e.g. http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/IndustrialRevolutionandtheStandardofLiving.html and the Encyclopedia of the Early Modern World and the Dictionary of American History http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Industrial_Revolution.aspx#1 ) See also the talk page of scientific revolution --Espoo (talk) 10:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2015[edit]

"The Bank of Japan, founded in 1877," should be changed to "The Bank of Japan, founded in 1882."

I am submitting this request because the Bank of Japan was created in 1882, not 1877, as the page currently suggests.

Source: https://www.boj.or.jp/en/about/outline/history/index.htm/

Switchstyle123 (talk) 17:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Kharkiv07Talk 18:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)