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

I have concerns regarding several aspects of this article, so I feel it is appropriate to open a GAR to discuss the issues. I have notified the most significant contributors to the article who have edited on Wikipedia within the past 12 months. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it 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. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

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

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

• Article is not subject to edit wars. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Images checked have appropriate copyright status. Not all images have been checked, so will revisit this section after it has been decided which images are to stay in the article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• It has an appropriate reference section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Query

• The prose is not always helpful to an understanding of the topic. At times it feels more as though the article were notes toward an article rather than the finished article itself. We have "In the late 17th and early 18th centuries the British government passed a series of Calico Acts in order to protect the domestic woollen industry from the increasing amounts of cotton fabric imported from India" which mentions the Calico Acts but doesn't explain them or put them into the context of the topic. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• At 87K the page is a little big. See WP:SIZERULE. Two sections, Causes, and Industrialisation beyond the United Kingdom, could be discussed as to their importance and relevance to this topic, and their relative size in the article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The number of External links appears to be excessive. Are they all necessary, and in compliance with WP:External links?. The links within the main body to YouTube are dubious, and certainly unnecessary. There are already links within the relevant sections to articles on Wikipedia dealing with the topics covered by the YouTube videos. If there is a place for such links then it would be on the appropriate article pages, not on this one. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. Copyright and original research have not yet been examined. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• There is a long quote at Railways and a very long quote at Demographic effects - are these necessary at that length? Could they be paraphrased? See WP:QUOTE. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fail

• Lead. To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know. The lead in this article does not appropriately summarise the contents of the article, and is unclear in terms of what it is about. It is not until the third paragraph we learn that the Industrial Revolution took place in the UK. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Verifiable. There are a significant number of challengeable statements which do not have an inline citation, such as "Some historians, such as John Clapham and Nicholas Crafts, have argued that the economic and social changes occurred gradually and the term revolution is a misnomer. This is still a subject of debate among historians." and "Use of coal in smelting started somewhat before the Industrial Revolution, based on innovations by Sir Clement Clerke and others from 1678, using coal reverberatory furnaces known as cupolas. These were operated by the flames playing on the ore and charcoal or coke mixture, reducing the oxide to metal. This has the advantage that impurities (such as sulfur ash) in the coal do not migrate into the metal. This technology was applied to lead from 1678 and to copper from 1687. It was also applied to iron foundry work in the 1690s, but in this case the reverberatory furnace was known as an air furnace. The foundry cupola is a different (and later) innovation." as examples. There are many more. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Article is cluttered with images, a number of which squeeze the text creating a cluttered, untidy appearance for some readers depending on their set up. Article would benefit from a more selective use of media images. In a number of cases the captions are overly long, and are carrying information (such as details about reciprocating motion) which are more appropriate in the main body. See WP:Captions for more info. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Layout. There are a number of very short subsections, and short paragraphs, which inhibit flow. And there are inclinations to lists, such as in the France subsection and Sweden subsection. The See also section is unusually long for a GA, though the links may be useful and appropriate as this is a complex and divergent topic. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

I've put the GAR on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from my talkpage:

I am a major contributor to Industrial Revolution and would like to continue improving the article. I plan to address as many of your criticisms as possible, but some of these will require time, especially those that may require consensus.Phmoreno (talk) 11:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to keep a review open while positive progress is being made, and will always give reasonable notice of intention to close. I have the review on my watchlist, so comments can be made there with the expectation I will notice them. If I haven't responded in several days, then please ping me. I will copy this over to the review page. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There has been one small edit since the GAN was put on hold. I don't see how the work needed can be done in a reasonable time at the current rate of progress. Unless there are objections I will close this GAN in two days and delist the article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]