Talk:Educationally subnormal

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Educationally subnormal article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Educationally subnormal has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society 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.
Review: March 1, 2023. (Reviewed version).

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom 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.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Education Low‑importance

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics 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.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disability

Educationally subnormal is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles

A fact from Educationally subnormal appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 March 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that girls at a school for children deemed "educationally subnormal" were given far less freedom than boys in order to prevent "sexual misbehaviour"?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2023/March. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Educationally Subnormal.

Wikipedia

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Lightburst (talk) 03:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that girls at a school for children deemed "educationally subnormal" were given far less freedom than boys in order to prevent "sexual misbehaviour"? Source: Günzburg, H. C. (October 1950). "The Significance of Various Aspects in Drawings by Educationally Subnormal Children". Journal of Mental Science. 96 (405): 951–975. doi:10.1192/bjp.96.405.951. ISSN 0368-315X.
- Reviewed:

Created by Llewee (talk). Self-nominated at 19:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Educationally Subnormal; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

AGF on the hook citation, it is interesting. The article is neutral and uses the correct inline citations. I was able to spot check several references and confirm them. Article was started and nominated within the timeframe and has 6270 characters which makes it long enough. I am sure there are many other hooks which we could find in the article if this one is deemed too risqué. I found it interesting enough to read the article. I did not find copyright issues and the copyvio detector does not alert to any violations. This is the nominator's third nomination so no QPQ is needed. Bruxton (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation

Hi Llewee, the article should be at Educationally subnormal, see WP:NCCAPS, do you mind if I move it? The DYK nomination does not need to be moved, but the hook should say "educationally subnormal" in lower case. TSventon (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed--Llewee (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should the GA nomination listing be updated? Otherwise the GA review page will have the wrong capitalisation. TSventon (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SyntheticSystems (talk · contribs) 20:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);^[2]

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

^[4]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

^[5]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[6]

Review

Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Prose is good but lead could be bigger.	On hold
(b) (MoS)	No MoS violations.	Pass

Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	References match up what is in the article but some references need page numbers.	On hold
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	All statements are sourced.	Pass
(c) (original research)	No original research.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	No plagiarism.	Pass

Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	All major aspects are covered.	Pass
(b) (focused)	In-depth coverage but could be better.	Pass

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
Neutral.	Pass

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
No edit wars.	Pass

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Images are good.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Images need alt text.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	Good.

Hi SyntheticSystems, thank you for reviewing the article. I've added images. Do you think any other changes are needed to the article?--Llewee (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you could expand the lead a little bit. SyntheticSystems (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SyntheticSystems, what do you think of the article now?--Llewee (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I think you might need page numbers for the first reference. SyntheticSystems (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SyntheticSystems, It's quite a short paper and the relevant parts span pretty much the whole thing.--Llewee (talk) 14:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.

[2] Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

[4] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]