Template:Did you know nominations/Carleton Washburne
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 15:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Carleton Washburne edit
- ...
that educator Carleton Washburne led a study that established 6.5 years as an appropriate age for entry to first grade in the United States?
- Reviewed: Battle of Caishi
5x expanded by Teemu08 (talk). Self nominated at 21:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC).
The article is well written and no copyvios are found. The subject is clearly notable. The expansion was more than eight-fold. Nomination was timely. QPQ was done. However, I have a problem with the hook, which seems a little shaky. The hook itself and the paragraph that contains it are cited to a single offline source. I could AGF, except that the information seems to me to be dubious or not widely accepted - particularly the claim that "the 6.5 year standard (for entry into first grade) is still largely in place"; actually most of the US uses age 6, not 6.5, as the standard for entry into first grade. If better sourcing is not available, could I suggest an alt hook about his connection with the Winnetka Plan - which is probably a more important legacy of his in any case? --MelanieN (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- @MelanieN: Would it be better if it was "an appropriate age" instead of "the appropriate age"? Most states seem to require children to be 6 by Fall of a given year (the date varies), putting the number between 6 and 6.5. Teemu08 (talk) 17:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, that is better. I still wish there was better documentation. Can you find anything a little stronger than an offline book reference - maybe a link to the study itself, or at least its title, journal listing, whatever? Here are some possibilities: [1] I don't mean to be a pain, but citation of the hook is important. --MelanieN (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- @MelanieN: The first result at the Google Scholar link you provided [2] is the aforementioned study. You should be able to see the citation at this Google Books preview link [3]. Teemu08 (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- @Teemu08: Obviously I knew that. The point here is not to show me the reference; I've seen it. The point is to cite it in the article. That's what it means, to say the hook is cited. I provided that link to suggest references you could add to the article. This whole process is about making the article better, or at least making it comply with the DYK requirements. Please add one or two of those links to the article, as references supporting the hook, and then we will be good to go. MelanieN (talk) 04:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Is the first day of school in 2014 in the US coming up on January 6th? Good day to put this hook on MainPage? --PFHLai (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- The hook is now verifiable, but I still find it bothersome that the article glibly states that 6.5 years "became the standardized age across the country for entry into first grade" and that "the 6.5 year standard is still largely in place." That is not and has not been the standard in any public school system I have been familiar with (not the schools I attended, nor the schools that several generations of my family members attended, nor the school systems in various places I've lived as an adult). The source cited seems to be something of an opinion piece, in which generalizations are made in order to emphasize a point. I'd like to see more solid sourcing (and I don't think that any solid sources can be found for this generalization about the standard U.S. age for starting school). --Orlady (talk) 06:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for that, Orlady! I had the same reservations about the information and the neutrality of the source, but decided (reluctantly) to let it go - mainly because I had already hassled so much about sourcing. What would you think about an entirely different hook, about his far better known connection with the Winnetka Plan? Teemu08, would you be OK with something like this? --MelanieN (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Alt1:
... that educator Carleton Washburne created the Winnetka plan which applied the principles of progressive education in elementary schools?- IMO, the Winnetka plan isn't nearly as interesting as the notion of an ideal age to start school. I'd prefer a variant of the original hook:
- ALT2:
... that educator Carleton Washburne led a study that identified 6.5 years as the optimal age for children to begin to learn to read?
- ALT2:
- I think that can be supported by the sources, but the article would require some revisions to support that hook wording. --Orlady (talk) 04:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- That should read "the optimal mental age". In looking at the sources I don't find the word "optimal", but it is implied by the original paper, which talks about "the best chance of their learning to read readily." --MelanieN (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Good point regarding "mental age". The source that you and I have had so much trouble with does indicate that because mental age equates, on average, to chronological age, this age was identified as the appropriate age to start first grade. If that kind of point could be made in the article, then the hook might not need to mention "mental age." Failing that, let's consider the reworded version:
- ALT2A: ... that educator Carleton Washburne led a study that identified 6.5 years as the optimal mental age for children to begin to learn to read?
- As for "optimal," I saw the word in one of the various sources I consulted -- I think it is a good description of what the study concluded. --Orlady (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Good point regarding "mental age". The source that you and I have had so much trouble with does indicate that because mental age equates, on average, to chronological age, this age was identified as the appropriate age to start first grade. If that kind of point could be made in the article, then the hook might not need to mention "mental age." Failing that, let's consider the reworded version:
- That should read "the optimal mental age". In looking at the sources I don't find the word "optimal", but it is implied by the original paper, which talks about "the best chance of their learning to read readily." --MelanieN (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- IMO, the Winnetka plan isn't nearly as interesting as the notion of an ideal age to start school. I'd prefer a variant of the original hook:
- Alt1:
- Thank you for that, Orlady! I had the same reservations about the information and the neutrality of the source, but decided (reluctantly) to let it go - mainly because I had already hassled so much about sourcing. What would you think about an entirely different hook, about his far better known connection with the Winnetka Plan? Teemu08, would you be OK with something like this? --MelanieN (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Given the extent of the changes that Melanie and I have made to this article, I believe we need a new reviewer to verify the completion of this review. My preference is ALT2A. --Orlady (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that a new, neutral reviewer should complete this review, and I also prefer ALT2A. I think "mental age" and "learning to read" are appropriate for the hook, because that is what Washburne's study was about. If other people extrapolated that to mean "chronological age" and "starting first grade", that wasn't Washburne's doing. One other point to consider: I still consider the claims in the article about the standard age for starting first grade to be dubious, as they are tagged, and I hate to have an article go onto the main page with a "dubious" tag on it. On the talk page I have proposed deleting those two sentences. Any comments on that point? --MelanieN (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- New reviewer still needed to review the ALT hooks now that problematic sentences and tag have been removed from the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
ALT2A hook ref is verified and cited inline. I linked mental age for people like me who don't know what it is (after reading the article, I do!). MelanieN's initial review still stands: 5x expansion verified, new enough, long enough, no close paraphrasing seen. QPQ done. ALT2A good to go. Yoninah (talk) 00:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)