Talk:Education in Wales

Untitled

It's extraordinary that there isn't a single mention of Welsh-medium education, one of the most obvious differences from England. I've put in a one-sentence mention, but hopefully someone who knows about it can make it more useful. Loganberry 01:36, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Template:Education infobox

I created a template, Template:Education infobox which can give a quick at a glance demographics table for education articles. See its implementation at Education in the United States and feel free to help improve the template.--naryathegreat | (talk) 01:00, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Education in Wales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090228112011/http://www.fforwm.ac.uk:80/ to http://www.fforwm.ac.uk
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110723043502/http://www.clwales.net/Introducing%20CLW.htm to http://www.clwales.net/Introducing%20CLW.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Education in Wales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fforwm.ac.uk/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051202092428/http://www.lifelonglearninguk.org/nationsregions/wales_links.html to http://www.lifelonglearninguk.org/nationsregions/wales_links.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Education in Wales/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SyntheticSystems (talk · contribs) 20:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe alt text on images is necessary (although it is always desirable) under the Good Article critera. Only Featured Articles are required to follow all elements of the MoS. Robminchin (talk) 20:49, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

SyntheticSystems Hi, what do you feel needs changing in the article?--Llewee (talk) 09:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I think you may need page numbers for some of the references and the history section needs to have at least a paragraph, maybe two. SyntheticSystems (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

SyntheticSystems, the history section has several subsections with multiple paragraphs each. I think the documents cited do largely have page numbers when specific pages are used. With the exception of a couple I didn't add and don't have access too.--Llewee (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. 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.

2. 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);

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(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.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Prose is good.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	No MoS violations.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	References match up what is in the article but some references need page numbers.	On hold
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	All statements are sourced.	Pass
(c) (original research)	No original research.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	No plagiarism.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	All major aspects are covered.	On hold
(b) (focused)	In-depth coverage.	On hold

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
Neutral.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
No edit wars.	Pass

6. 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)	Images need alt text.	On hold
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Image placement is good.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
On hold	Needs more improvements but is workable.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Education in Wales/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 16:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I'm happy to review this article. I'll be using the template below. Sorry the first review didn't work out. If you have any questions as we go, you can just ask here or on my talk page, either's fine! —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Copyright violations found by Earwig. I will also do a manual check for copyvio issues, but copyvio like the two examples below could lead to an instant failure to pass GA, per the criteria. @Llewee:, please fix these in the next 48 hours or the review will not pass. Thank you! —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Ganesha811 and thankyou for reviewing this article. Sorry about the copyright issues, the first is text which has been here since the first time I read the article, the second is some overly close paraphrasing on my part. I have tried to fix paragraphs.--Llewee (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response and for fixing the copyvio issues. I will continue on to the rest of the review. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, I've messed around with the text quite a bit this evening. I'll leave it alone for a while so you can review a stable version. Please feel free to @ me if any problems need to be dealt with.--Llewee (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know - I'll review the article as it presently exists. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@Llewee, I think addressing the source issues in their entirety will result in some significant changes to the article, so take a look and address the issues below, and then I'll continue on to the other sections of the review. Thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Ganesha811, I am probably not going to be able to address this review for a couple of weeks. I've got another review to finish off and a couple of things to sort in real life by the end of this month. I'm sorry about the delay.--Llewee (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, life is busy for all of us and we're all volunteers here. That is a while, though, so I'm not sure about how best to handle this. Tell you what, I'll put the review on hold until June 7th. If you can get to it before then, great! If you haven't been able to address these comments by then, I'll close it out at that point and you can renominate whenever works best for you. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@Llewee, I'm closing this review due to inactivity. Feel free to re-nominate it, of course, but I would recommend addressing the sourcing and other issues below first to avoid a quickfail on future reviews. It's too bad you couldn't get back around to this one in time, but happy editing! —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Some of the sources need real attention and cleanup. Current source #13 (Records of the Welsh department) has a ton of repeated parameters. The Reitan book could use a publisher and maybe a chapter title. Source #14 and Source #2 are the same (history of devolution). #17 needs a source name (BBC) (labour routs...). Source #20 (Reynolds) is improperly formatted, most info is contained within the url-link, it should be separate parameters. Etc etc. That's just in the first 20. Please go through all the sources and fix those and similar issues. It will be some work but it's needed for GA standard!
	2b. 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).	What is the case for the Powys Digital History Project being a reliable source? I'm not convinced by what I can find, so would welcome your perspective. Same question for Oxford Royale. GOV.WALES should generally be cited as the specific department or organization that produced the page in question, or 'Government of Wales'. What suggests that daynurseries.co.uk is a reliable source? Cite #60 is a deadlink and the organization (fforwm) appears to no longer exist or have been renamed. I would suggest finding a different source. Please make a case for the reliability of thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk. Overall, highly reliant on government sources and the BBC. While this is largely understandable, it would be helpful to have more independent academic sources throughout the article, as well as scholarly books by reliable authors.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig finds two copyright violations, one especially clear. Here's the first and the second. On the second, the violation is actually more extensive than Earwig indicates, with a lot of borrowed phrasing scattered throughout the relevant paragraphs. These issues need to be fixed immediately. These issues have been addressed; hold for manual copyright check against other sources.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Is there a more up-to-date source for literacy than 2003?
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.