Talk:Summerhill (book)

Summerhill (book) 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: April 26, 2015. (Reviewed version).

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Education Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative education (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative education, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Alternative educationWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative educationTemplate:WikiProject Alternative educationAlternative education articles

A fact from Summerhill (book) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 November 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Harry Elmer Barnes called Summerhill, a book about the eponymous school, one of the most exciting and challenging books in the field of education since Rousseau's Émile?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2013/November. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Summerhill (book).

Wikipedia

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Ravitch's Troubled Crusade ch. on radicals has a small section

DYK nomination

{{Did you know nominations/Summerhill (book)}} czar ⨹

There's almost nothing about the content of the book or ideas containe therein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.235.1.4 (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Summerhill (book)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Herald (talk · contribs) 14:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try my best to complete the review in a couple of days. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 14:22, 24 April 2015 (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] and

(c) it contains no original research.

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

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments and discussion

The article is a cool one and fine. But here some points of concern:

It is known for introducing his ideas to the American public. It was published in America on November 7, 1960, by the Hart Publishing Company and later revised as Summerhill School: A New View of Childhood in 1993. could be merged..-The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 16:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Herald, thanks for the review! Could me merged how? czar ⨹ 17:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History section could be better be called as background section instead. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 16:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ done czar ⨹ 17:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any template to be transcribed at the bottom? -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 16:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean a navbox? No, the topic group is too small: the school, Neill, and the book. I'm looking into another option... czar ⨹ 17:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A slight expansion in legacy and you are done. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 16:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What aspects are not covered in the current Legacy section? I believe Bailey is the best overview available. czar ⨹ 17:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result

The article is passed the GA review. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 07:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional notes

^ 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]