(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
Prefer additional secondary sources, including more recent sources, for framing; some are listed below in the discussion section
Don't know
(c) (original research)
No original research.
Pass
Broad in its coverage:
Criteria
Notes
Result
(a) (major aspects)
A "background" and "legacy" section (both of which can include influences) would round out this article. I've pointed to several sources that can be used to do this below. Further, Goodman's central argument against compulsory schooling (or rather U.S. formal education) isn't presented front and center, but rather in bits and pieces with the most important parts of the argument missing. To paraphrase Goodman: In the early 1960s, many people received a compulsory, formal "education", but this actually deadened "intellectual curiosity" and independent thought, and instead, trained students to be unquestioning, obedient employees of corporations and the government, supporting conformity, brainwashed consumerism and busy-work. Hence the "miseducation". To fix this problem, Goodman recommended educational reforms similar to John Dewey and proposed experimental schooling in place of the failed compulsory system.
Don't know
(b) (focused)
OK.
Pass
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Notes
Result
No explicit neutrality problems at hand, but the reliance on older sources from the time of publication and the exclusion of more current appraisals raises the question of legacy and influence, which by their exclusion could present a pseudo-neutrality issue.
Don't know
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Notes
Result
OK.
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)
I think this article is very close to passing. I would be happy to pass this article at the bare minimum if 1) the lead is tightened up a bit to better reflect the main arguments in the summary section; 2) at least one contemporary source is added to this article for the purposes of framing Goodman's argument, describing any influence, or pointing to a legacy (I've provided a selected list of more current secondary sources below); and 3) a bit of background or development content is added, either from the "Preface" in Goodman's book or some other source, giving the reader a touch more information about who Goodman is, why he wrote this book, and if possible, providing the historical context of the contemporaneous cultural changes occurring in the 1960s at the time this book was written and published. I really don't think I'm asking too much here. I bring these things to the attention of the nominator because these were the questions I had while reading the article. Standing back a bit, I see that the nominator has taken a pure, formal approach to this topic, but I feel this also detracts from the overall understanding of the subject, leaving me (as the reader) with more questions than answers. To summarize, I'm looking for a tighter presentation of Goodman's thesis in the lead, a little more background about the author and development (most of this is in the "Preface"), and if possible, more about any influence, legacy, and historical context from at least one current secondary source. Thanks for your patience. Viriditas (talk) 09:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I have a few balls up in the air right now. Would it be okay to leave it open another week or two? – czar00:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas:, @Czar:: the article has not been edited since July 9, and Czar has made over 4000 Wikipedia edits since then, about 2700 of them since the above exchange. I respectfully suggest that it is time to close the nomination; it can be always be resubmitted when Czar has been able to devote some time to the needed updates. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: this is a great start, and you clearly put some work into this, but looking at the scope and the references, I do see a small red flag. Your references range only for a period of about a decade out from when the book was originally published. Because of this narrow range, you've missed out on the wider, historical context that this book fits into, which has come to be known as the free school movement. The influence this book had on the movement and the interchange of ideas that arose out of its contribution to this body of thought is covered in many reliable sources published since that time. In other words, you're missing out on the wider influence and legacy that this book fits into. Personally, I would categorize this absence under criterion 3a (Broad coverage). You really wouldn't have to add very much to address this, perhaps two large paragraphs at the most, in either a "Legacy" or "Influence" section of some kind. Viriditas (talk) 06:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious how you're substantiating those claims that CM had any influence on the FSM. What sources do you have in mind? – czar14:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Czar, there's an enormous amount of literature on this subject, particularly after the 1970s, when this movement faded. The sources used to write this article come from its heyday. When you start to use sources from the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s, the legacy and influence will emerge. There's a general overview you can look at from 2002, called Free Schools, Free People: Education and Democracy after the 1960s that makes the case, but more importantly, places the author and his work in the proper context of the FSM. Although there is a lot there, you can get a basic sense of the depth of the subject by starting on page 46 and reading for several pages. Academic Joel Spring referred to Goodman as "a leader in the free-school movement in the 1960s and 1970s" and as a "freeschool advocate".[2] My concern isn't so much with the specifics, but with the lack of a general background, historical context, influence, and legacy in the article. Also, I note that many of the sources refer back to Growing Up Absurd as a supporting work, so perhaps this article should also mention the connection between both works. Viriditas (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I generally appreciate your thorough style of review, but your tone comes off as presumptuous. I would appreciate trying to work with me rather than telling me how it is. I'm very familiar with the free school movement. I wrote its WP article. I asked what I did because I've read almost all the extant literature on the FSM (which is scattered and definitely not "enormous"), including Miller's book, and know there is no connection between CM's specific legacy and the FSM apart from it being a book that adherents might have read. Secondary sources purely use CM as a statement of his ideology or philosophy on education. That's how it's quoted in the Miller book you suggested. While it was one of his more popular books, its influence pales in comparison to Growing Up Absurd, his breakthrough, which made him a countercultural icon (as social critic, radical romantic) to FSM people. So if anything, Goodman's oeuvre after GUA influenced the FSM but hardly the specific ideas in CM. If any secondary source spoke about CM's wider influence, I would have included it. It's completely normal for a book's reception to clump around its release date—that's what most books do. It has not garnered much interest since the 70s (similar to Goodman's own legacy), apart from what I just described. CM has no real Legacy to warrant an arbitrary two-paragraph section, and anything worth extracting about its relation to the FSM fits better on PG's page (which I have in draft). Now, I would have entertained a suggestion to try to build a "Legacy" section—which is a fair request—had you just taken the kinder route of asking a question rather than making a demand, but it is irresponsible and so far outside the scope of this GA review to assert some kind of authority to send me (or anyone else for that matter) on a wild goose chase after nonexistent connections. I would have replied that the FSM was largely peripheral to Goodman, and the secondary sources, including the passage of the Miller book you mentioned, refer to his work as a whole rather than singling out CM. I can add a brief blurb on Legacy based on a retrospective source, even though I find it unnecessary, but I would never have threatened this review (or one like it) with failing in breadth without being damn sure that the claims I were making were substantiated. I hope you will be more generous in your future interactions and reviews. – czar19:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you feel that way. I haven't written anything presumptuous or threatening here, nor is my tone the problem, however, I think you should examine your replies up above for the problems you describe in others. I stand by everything I've said, and much more, as my claims are fully substantiated by sources stating directly that the book influenced the FSM (De Leon, 1994). It's really strange that you would argue over such minor points and respond with such hosility and aggression. I think you must have misread or misinterpreted what I wrote in some way. It is an uncontested statement of fact that Goodman and the book in question influenced the FSM. Yet, there is nothing about this in the article. Instead of acknowledging this simple point, you have objected to it quite strenuously, contrary to the sources. More to the point, there is a wider context that the book fits into, a broader historical context that the current article fails to note. Secondary sources close to the time of the event tend to become primary, so we really need sources published within the last 40 years that can inform us on both the framing of the book in the aforementioned context, as well as it's subsequent influence and legacy. This is how we write about non-fiction books on Wikipedia. If this constructive criticism upsets you, then I apologize in advance, but I stand by everything I've said in this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Summarizing missing elements
This book does not exist in a vacuum:
Background to school reform movement in the 1960s
"Free schools also were grounded in the left’s critique of bureaucracy that marked the 1960s."
"When student activists like Berkeley’s Mario Savio proclaimed that “we have come up against what may emerge as the greatest problem of our nation—depersonalized, unresponsive bureaucracy,” he captured a sentiment that was at the core of the free school philosophy. Many free schoolers were heavily influenced by educator Paul Goodman..."[3]
Note, other sources discuss how Savio was influenced by previous works by Goodman. The quote up above was spoken during the famous sit-in December 1964 at Sproul Plaza.
Already notable for his earlier work Growing Up Absurd (1960) before Compulsory Miseducation. (Skinner, 2005)
Ravitch notes Compulsory Miseducation followed in the footsteps of A.S. Neill's popular Summerhill (1960), and that Goodman admired Neill. (Ravitch 1985).
Development of the material he used to criticize education was based on Goodman's visits to NYC public schools for the school board. (Skinner, 2005)
Reasons and concerns for writing the book ("His concern at the time of writing...is to enable people to feel at home in the new technological era and so to diminish the sense of alienation...advocates...science education". As cited in Barrow 1978)
The book is dedicated to Mabel Chrystie, founder of the First Street School, who would later marry George Dennison, both of whom were active in the free-school movement. Goodman's daughter would also teach there. (Stoehr, 2013)
The book is loosely referred to in the sources as a "sequel" of sorts to Growing Up Absurd (1960), with the sources noting their scope, themes, similarities, and differences. In addition to Miller, several sources tie the two books together; the most recent are by Andrew Hartman of Illinois State University.[4][5] The last part of the book about college education draws on his previous work, The Community of Scholars (1962). In other words, there is a continuity between the three works, perhaps even an "extended argument", if you will. For example, the meaning and historical resonance of the title (Kridel, 2010) and what it refers to (compulsory education) is previously discussed in depth in Growing Up Absurd (1960). According to Kaminsky (2006), the book was one of four that criticized U.S. education: Growing Up Absurd, Compulsory Miseducation, The Community of Scholars, and The New Reformation.
There are many political influences and traditions at work. In hindsight, one may refer to them by many different names, even if they may contradict each other: philosophy of education, criticism of education, social criticism, liberalism, anarchism, paleolibertarianism, etc.
Sections of the book were previously published (The Paul Goodman Reader, 2011) and the book itself appeared in several different editions and title variations. One notable edition that is widely cited, is a volume that includes two separate works: Compulsory Mis-Education and the Community of Scholars. Publication date says 1964, but several other sources lend credence to 1962. For example, there are OCLC entries that indicate an earlier date of 1962.[6][7] One possible explanation for this, is that the entry is confusing the date with The Community of Scholars, which was published in 1962, and published as a double book. The counterargument to this idea is that Compulsory Miseducation was originally published in England in 1962.[8] The correct answer is not clear, but I do note that many scholarly publications use the 1962 date. If there was a scanned copy of the first few pages, it would be easy to confirm or deny. Viriditas (talk) 01:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Goodman's criticism of education in the book is similar to John Dewey's (Hursh, 2003)
Legacy and influence is covered in many secondary sources, for example Friedenberg (1994) and Kaminsky (2006)
Skinner notes that Goodman, as a "1960s antibureaucratic liberal", was an early advocate for school vouchers and against teachers unions in Compulsory Miseducation, anticipating the positions of antibureaucratic conservatives in later decades. (Skinner, 2005). Earlier, Thomas R. Berg explored this idea in "Paul Goodman's Progressive Conservatism" (1981), noting that Goodman's ideas are equally attractive to conservatives, liberals, and radicals.
This is not bad, but I feel that it doesn't necessarily summarize Goodman's argument very well. For example, many significant points are made in the summary section but not in the lead. This is one reason that at least referring to current secondary (and by way of passing tertiary) sources is so important. We want to get the framing right. I'll have more to say about this in a bit. Viriditas (talk) 06:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Background
Missing, but clearly communicated by Goodman in the "Preface" of the book and in some of the more current secondary sources. I suspect that many of the older sources cited in this article also support this material. It's a bit strange that it's not in the article. Viriditas (talk) 07:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Summary
The summary section is good, but there is an unusual reliance on quoting things that are better summarized and paraphrased. The general rule of thumb is to only quote directly when necessary, otherwise summarize and paraphrase. When it's necessary to quote depends on several different things, usually corresponding to the exact language of a concept or idea under discussion by Goodman. While you do very well summarizing and paraphrasing, many of your quotations are unnecessary because you are quoting common words and phrases that are not essential to Goodman's thesis. I'll provide examples of this later, but I wanted to point this out. Viriditas (talk) 06:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Goodman does not expect these reforms to be adopted.
That's quite different than what the cited source says. Keats writes: "Mr. Goodman suffers no delusions that his suggestions will be immediately embraced. “My purpose,” he says, “is to get people at least to begin to think in another direction, to look for an organization of education less wasteful of human." I think there's a big difference between "does not expect these reforms to be adopted" and "Mr. Goodman suffers no delusions that his suggestions will be immediately embraced." Viriditas (talk) 08:36, 7 July 2015 (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.
^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.
Don't know
Pass