Talk:Washington County Closed-Circuit Educational Television Project/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Wasted Time R (talk · contribs) 18:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun reviewing this nomination. I am aware of the ANI discussion and action around the nominator, but as I understand it, existing nominations can go forward with the reviewing process. From what I've seen so far, this nominated article is in reasonably good shape and is not a quick fail on copyvio or other grounds. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Interesting subject and article.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Generally good, but see a few items below
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
Some problems with source coverage or formatting, see items below; definitely some problems with too-close paraphrasing
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
See aspects that could be added or expanded upon, especially regarding impact, see items below
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
See one item below
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Re 1a and 1b:

The lessons were eight to 22 percent of the student's day ... – should be '8 to 22 percent', per MOS:NUMNOTES.

The 6 year 'Pioneering Experiment' ... – should be 'six-year'.

It would be useful to give a link for filmstrips – younger readers won't have any idea what those things were.

I think the first part of the "Demise" section, up through Brish's retirement in 1973, could be called "Change of approach" or something like that. Because the project was still going, albeit in altered form. Then the narrative after that can justly be under "Demise".

Re 2a and 2b:

as the first closed-circuit television network in aiding elementary school teaching by the use of television programs. – this isn't cited in the lede and it isn't repeated and cited in the body. The source is fn 14, the Kane book, but one way or another it has to be given.

At the time the idea of providing a conversational course in a foreign language like French or Spanish was being considered. – It should be clarified that this was for elementary school children.

Another consideration for the use of television lessons was adult education in the medical field. – This is kind of confusing/misleading. What the source is saying is that the television system was used to provide after-school education to the teachers, in this case how to spot children with heart-related health issues such as rheumatic fever.

The telecast concept is still done in one way or another throughout the United States in schools. – what is the source for this? Don't see it in the fn 4 timeline source that's given.

fn 4 title should be put into sentence case

fn 13 title should be put into sentence case

Bibliography – Barnouw entry – the cite is incomplete. It should list Barnouw as the editor of the encyclopedia, but you also need to cite author and title of encyclopedia entry itself. And the work being cited is in four volumes – which one is this? I see a mention of the project on p. 154 of volume 1, page 153–155, "Audiovisual Education" entry by Wilbur Schramm. But that doesn't match the p. 84 given in fn 18 in the article. And what's at p. 154 does not source most of what fn 18 in the article is covering.

Bibliography – Kane entry – the quote should be on the footnote that uses it, not in the entry here. The edition – Fifth – should be stated in this entry. And per the book on OpenLibrary, the page number is 185 not 184.

Re 2d:

This is a problem area. Here are some of the things that have been spotted (with credit to User:Indignant Flamingo, who found a lot of them):

Our article: The Washington County Closed-Circuit Educational Television Project was not intended to take over the whole school day.
Source: Superintendent of Schools William M. Brish emphasized that the television lessons were never intended to take over the whole school day for students.
Our article: Television lessons were intended to augment the regular school lessons and accomplish certain important things.
Source: However, he said, if television education is used during part of the school day, it makes possible the accomplishments of certain important things.
Our article: an addition to text books, filmstrips, and other classroom tools
Source: an addition to the book, filmstrips, and other tools
Our article: The studio teachers were recruited from the county regular teachers.
Source: Studio teachers were recruited almost entirely from the ranks of county teachers.
Our article: The studio teachers worked as a team with the regular school room teachers in each subject area for the curriculum of televised instruction.
Source: The studio teachers work as a team with classroom teachers in each subject area in planning the curriculum of televised instruction...
Our article: Each televised lesson that the students watched was followed up by a regular school room teacher whose knowledge of the subject was par with the studio teacher so that the pupils' questions were answered correctly and laboratory work was done properly.
Source: Each televised lesson is followed up by a classroom teacher whose knowledge of the subject must be on a par with the studio teacher so that questions are answered accurately, testing is effective, and laboratory work and drill is done properly.
Our article: during their school year showed health habits, story telling, adventures, fairy tales, Christmas story themes and creative plays
Source: During the year, health habits, fairy tales, Christmas stories, adventure, and creative plays were presented.
Our article: Even though numerous studies showed that students that received supplemental televised instruction were consistently ahead of the normal learning curve
Source: Although numerous studies and evaluations concluded that students receiving televised instruction were consistently ahead of the learning curve

There are likely other cases. Some of these are borderline in terms of WP:Close paraphrasing whereas others are clearly over the line. But all betray what looks to be a copy-paste-rearrange approach, which invariably leads to concerns in this area.

Re 3a:

There are several New York Times articles about the Washington County project that can be used as sources. This one from July 1956 discusses some of the goals of the project and shows that the project had national visibility. This one from Sept 1956 gives an update as the school year and the project actually began. This one from January 1957 gives a positive assessment after the first half-year. This one from August 1960 talks about the renewal of the Ford grant. This one from Sept 1962 has FCC head Newton Minow listing the Washington County project as one of the ventures providing the usefulness of educational television, on the road to public broadcasting stations being set up.

It would be useful to briefly expand on "because of the lack of adequately trained teachers". The existing fn 2 Saettler p. 368 source gives the numbers - there were 352 teachers in the grade schools, and of them 97 were lacking a bachelor's degree and 75 were relying on emergency teaching certificates.

Some additional benefits that the Washington County staff was from using television are given on Saettler p. 426 and could be incorporated into the article.

One thing that could be made clear is that the project was not constructed as a formal educational study – Saettler p. 425 says that and I think it saw it stated somewhere else as well.

This could be good as an "External links" entry: Washington County Closed-Circuit Television Project: Statement of William M. Brish before Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, April 24, 1958.

As a Talk page comment from 2013 states, the article needs to describe the Washington County project's impact on education at the time and later on. This article seems incomplete without an analysis of the usefulness of the project.

One thing I see in this regard is Saettler p. 374, which discussses the contribution of the various Fund for the Advancement of Education projects including the Washington County project. It concludes that these projects did not fundamentally change education to introduce television. However it says these projects did spur interest in the possibilities, and influenced passage in Congress of the Educational Television Facilities Act of 1962 and the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967.

Another thing I see is Saettler p. 444–445n58, which describes the Fund for the Advancement of Education launching a National Program in the Use of Television in the Public Schools.

And another thing I notice is in the fn 4 timeline source, there is a U.S. map diagram that seems to suggest that the Washington County instructional television project was adopted in some form by some other school systems around the country. When was that and in what forms were those adoptions?

Re 6b:

What is the relevance of the Washington County Technical High School image? The building was not opened until 1972, apparently, so it would have come in at the tail end of things. And I didn't see it mentioned in the 50 Years timeline source. I understand the desire to show an image of the school system, but that caption should try to establish what the connection is to the subject.

Anyway, I am placing the nomination on hold. I should say that the article is in somewhat worse shape than I first estimated when I decided to review it. But I still don't want to fail it outright. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:20, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for review. Will start on the issues tomorrow morning.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

Copyright issues.

Source: "Six lessons can be sent simultaneously over this cable and picked up on more than 800 standard twenty-one-inch television sets in classrooms, school cafeterias and auditoriums throughout the county."
Article: "Six lessons could be transmitted simultaneously over the cable system and used on 800 standard 21-inch televisions. The TV sets were distributed throughout classrooms, cafeterias, and auditoriums around the county."
Source: "Although numerous studies and evaluations concluded that students receiving televised instruction were consistently ahead of the learning curve, taxpayers in Washington County refused to support it. This forced Elected School Boards to under-fund, thus eliminate, Instructional Television Production."
Article: "Washington County taxpayers refused to support the project. Even though numerous studies showed that students that received supplemental televised instruction were consistently ahead of the normal learning curve the concept came to an end in Washington County, Maryland."

These were two I picked at random. Unfortunately this looks like a WP:GAFAIL#2 to me. Ovinus (talk) 03:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It pains me to point out that we have here, again, another article from this editor that completely misuses sources. I'll just give one example: a huge amount of stuff is sourced to "Keefer, Greg. "50 YEARS OF INSTRUCTIONAL TELEVISION IN WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND (A HISTORICAL TIMELINE – 1956 – 2006)". Washington County school district. Webmaster Greg Keefer". THIS ISN'T AN INDEPENDENT SOURCE, and cannot possibly be relied on for puffery such as the project required that the educators get used to technical terms such as videcon, zoom, and dolly out. Once associated with these terms and the basic operations Washington County then needed little professional and technical assistance for the undertaking. Other schools of other counties then soon followed the ide (even after one figures out what "Once associated with these terms" even means). Ok, two examples ... 'Harlacher, Frank (June 11, 1962). "Maryland Education Official Describes His ETV Setup"' is used as the source for The project television center in Hagerstown, Maryland, compared to that of commercial television stations and Each televised lesson that the students watched was followed up by a regular school room teacher whose knowledge of the subject was par with the studio teacher so that the pupils' questions were answered correctly and laboratory work was done properly. That resulted in effective drills and testing. N-O, no. Articles don't parrot puffery from the school officials involved about how successful their innovation was. E Eng 06:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Re the image captioned "Typical 1950s 21 inch television set" -- sorry, where do we get the "fact" that this is "typical" of the 1950s? Where do we get the fact that it's 21 inches (which I SERIOUSLY doubt -- doubt that this particular set is 21 inches, and doubt that 21 inches was typical for the time). This seems to be something the article's editor simply made up and stuck in the article.

As the reviewer, let me say that I'm aware of how much animus has built up against the nominator. I've read the ANI discussions and, having reviewed several of his GA nominations in the past, I have first-hand familiarity with many of the non-copyvio-related complaints against him – floods the queue with simultaneous nominations, is anxious to get through the review process as fast as possible, doesn't communicate well, mentions his nom-approval stats/speed at odd times, won't help out by doing reviews himself. Nonetheless he does pick some interesting subjects that would otherwise be overlooked/forgotten in the modern online world, and I am trying to see if this one in particular can be salvaged.

@Ovinus: The copyvio issues are going to have to be found and fixed sooner or later, so it might as well be now. The second of the two you saw is already listed in the review above, while the first of them is new. If you see any others, please add them here.

@EEng: I have to respectfully disagree that these sources are being completely misused. I agree the 50 years timeline source is not independent, but I found it credible. I'm sure the teachers and other school staff did have to get used to some technical terms; I don't see that as puffery. The Harlacher piece is from a series that the Bangor Daily News, a large mainstream newspaper in Maine, published, and is under explicit editorial control. So I think it's okay to use. And, as my review found, there are a number of New York Times articles about the Washington County project that can be used. Those, combined with the additional mentions in the Saettler book that I found, convinces me that this was a well-regarded effort, both at the time and in retrospect. As for the TV set image, you're right, there's nothing in the image that says it is a 21-inch set. I missed that, as I was focused on whether the Technical High School image belonged. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:58, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid we have here a good example of the subpar reviewing that's allowed Doug Coldwell to amass his hoard of ill-gotten GA medals via shitty article after shitty article:

The school district's self-published retrospective saying, essentially, "once everyone got used to it we could do it ourselves on the cheap!", and "our idea was so good everyone else copied it!" is absolutely not an appropriate source.
"Explicit editorial control"? What on earth are you talking about? Harlacher was himself a member of the board of education. Local papers routinely publish puffy stuff by local officials helping the public feel good about government programs. No one mistakes such stuff for hard news, and statements about how a program "ensured" this or "is successful" at that or "on par" with some other thing, are unverified puffery that articles should probably not even be quoting, much less stating as fact in WP's voice,
"The endeavor was dubbed 'Pioneering Experiment'" – No, it wasn't named "Pioneering Experiment", that's the (claimed) characterization of it (in quote marks in the source) by some unnamed enthusiastic person.
"William M. Brish had an idea in 1956 to experiment with teaching the K-12 grades using instruction by live television and pre-recorded programs" – Nothing in the source suggests it was his idea; he just described it in his newsletter.

I could go on and on. Worst of all, the article's to a large extent a rambling grab-bag of random stuff that often makes no sense. "The electronic structure was transmitting equipment and amplifiers connected by 115 miles of grounded coaxial cable" -- electronic structure? grounded coaxial cable? What are you talking about? Not to mention that that info, vacuous as it is, doesn't seem to be in the source cited. E Eng 08:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It goes without saying that this is your review, and yours only. That said, it seems likely that the article will need to be totally rewritten to comply with basic copyright policy. From a process point of view it's rather unwise to pass such articles; from a pragmatic point of view I'm not sure this (essentially asking him to totally rewrite an article for a GA review) is the most efficient way to ensure DC understands copyright. Every nontrivial sentence will need to be checked. Ovinus (talk) 05:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More strongly, after DC rewrites this, every nontrivial sentence will need to be checked, by someone other than DC, against sources that may well be offline. The ANI thread includes examples where DC has claimed to have checked for copyvio, after being told to, but where those checks missed copying that should not have been missed. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

your review, and yours only – Ridiculous. Yes, GA is an intentionally lightweight process under which a single editor can do job from beginning to end, but if the matter attracts the attention of other editors then it becomes a consensus process -- outside of Arbcom there's nothing on WP not subject to consensus. E Eng 08:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I don't agree with everything that's being said about the article or about my review of it, but clearly there is a consensus that this nomination should be failed, both on substantive grounds and on process grounds. So I am failing it. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:22, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]