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)

Important missing section: The Industrial revolution's impact on biodiversity & global temperatures[edit]

These texts should serve as reference for the new section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene#Biodiversity http://www.livescience.com/43132-preindustrial-global-warming-estimated.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.164.194.214 (talk) 12:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

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)

Contradictory dates[edit]

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?[edit]

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. 213.109.230.96 (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. 213.109.230.96 (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)

Interlink to Quiz[edit]

For the sake of uniformity I tried to put the interlink to the Quiz in the boxes to the right, along with the interlinks to Commons and Wikiquote (See Industrial_Revolution#External_links). Only the inline interlink seems to work. For documentation see User_talk:Guy_vandegrift/sandbox.--guyvan52 (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

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)