Talk:Raising of school leaving age in England and Wales/GA1

GA nomination

After carefully reviewing this article I have decided it does not at present meet GA criteria. Furthermore I think that such significant edits are required that the article should not be placed on hold. I will now explain why I failed this article in detail in relation to Wikipedia:What is a good article?

Firstly and this is the most important I believe the article does not meet point three, specifically the following: 3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:

   (a) addresses the major aspects of the topic;[4] and
   (b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).

Although this tag was placed a while ago, and new information has not been found I do not believe that the article is broad enough for an encylopedic article on the raising of school leaving age. Whilst excellent on the UK, there are dozens of nations across the world, and I think more specifically in Europe who have had similar laws and acts to raise (possibly lower) the school leaving age. Therefore my biggest recommedation (if no information in English online or in print) can be found that the article be moved to a seperate new article for school leaving age. At present however it does not address the major aspect of the topic, in that school leaving age varies from nation to nation, the raising of which most likely has generated intense debate in their respective nations. Secondly I must also argue that some of the article does not stay focused on the article, in that it eloborates in summary style certain government acts - the clearest example being the 2013 future act.

Furthermore following on from this, I also think the article fails on several other WP:WIAGA criteria, such as point 1, it is well written. For example take the following: The government thinks the toughest cases will be the youngsters it describes as NEET (Not in Education, Employment or Training). Another 7% of 16-year-olds fall into this category and the proportion rises to 13% among 18-year-olds.[13] The figure of young people classified as NEET has remained stable at between 8-10% from 1993-2004, although the DfES estimated that the figure had risen in 2005 to 11%, which represents 220,000 young people. Although the figures quoted are only a snapshot, it's worth noting that in practice, only 1% (or around 20,000 young people) are classified as NEET through their years aged 16-18, as there is alot of CHURN with young people moving between training, employment and NEET status.[17] The phrase Although the figures quoted are only a snapshot, it's worth noting that in practice, is not encyclopedic.

I also believe that the article fails on other points - these being points 2 A and C:

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:

   (a) provides references to sources used;
   (b) cites reliable sources for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, preferably using inline citations for longer articles;[2][3] and
   (c) contains no original research.

Firstly a lot of the article appears to be original research, more over there are significant lapses in references. Some examples of this are:

While many countries around the world have achieved making the leaving age equal the the minimum legal working age, the majority of countries still fail at synchronising their school leaving age with the minimum age of legal employment. Whilst there are a significant number of countries which have appeared to achieve this, which allows transition into employment much easier and smoother, a minority have the age set very low, an example being the Syrian Arab Republic.

Another: Although the Government is keen to implement the changes, many have opposed such an act until current problems with the education system can be addressed first. There are still numerous questions which remain unanswered, such as how to extend the capacity of schools and colleges to cope with all 16-18 year olds, as opposed to the current 76% which already stay on in further education. Points have also been raised with regards to addressing truancy, a problem which already exists across the country with children who are already in compulsory education.

Another: For many secondary schools around England and Wales in areas without a Middle School, they were unable to accommodate for 5th year students. The decision was made to construct a new building for each school (often referred to as ROSLA Buildings, ROSLA Blocks or more uncommonly, Trent Buildings) that needed to extent their capacity, so that the school would have the capacity to cope with this new generation of ROSLA students.

Other points why this article fails GA is in regards to the images, particularly File:NEET graph.png. The image shows 16 - 18 year olds in education and employment. There is no detailed fair use rationale, only a blanket cover. See Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline for more details. However I believe that this image could be easily reproduced, so I have to ask why has it not been, given that it is only a basic graph?

Finally let me also add that parts of the article seem far too long, whilst others far too concise. For example the section about Act 1899 simply states "Minimum leaving age raised to 13" whilst the Education Act 2013 (Proposed) is extremely large in comparison with the rest of the article.

On the whole though there is a lot of good, clearly written information in the article. However it is at best a B class in its present state. I believe it needs several additional references, a major cleanup and tidy etc. I would first recommend a peer review process or nominating it for collaboration of the month. This would encourage other users to help expand the article especially in regards to raising the school age outside the UK. If you do decide to create a new article about the UK then I still believe that a rewrite of the text, with edits for prose, grammar, style and references are a must. If I can be of any further help or if you have any queries please feel free to message me. Regards, LordHarris 00:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--- Toroboro wrote: I would also add that there are numerous stylistic or grammatical mistakes in the prose of the article. A few examples:

"in recent years, it has come apparent that" - (should be "become apparent")

"The British Government is hopeful to change this attitude" (should use a "that" clause after the adjective "hopeful")

"The introduction of the Elementary Education Act 1870 (applying to England and Wales), commonly known as Forster's Education Act having been drawn up by William Edward Forster, created the concept of compulsory education for children under thirteen, although didn't insist on compulsory attendance initially," - (although should be followed a noun phrase)

"The solution to the problem was to construct a new building for these schools (often referred to as ROSLA Buildings or ROSLA Blocks) that needed to extent their capacity[3], providing them with the capacity to cope with the new generation of ROSLA students (ambiguity surrounding "that needed" - "these schools...that needed" should in any case be "those schools")

These are just a few examples of the sloppy use of English in this article, which almostr seems at times to have been written by a non-native speaker. Not a good article, yet.