Talk:Educationally subnormal

Did you know nomination

The following 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 Lightburst (talk) 03:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that girls at a school for children deemed "educationally subnormal" were given far less freedom than boys in order to prevent "sexual misbehaviour"? Source: Günzburg, H. C. (October 1950). "The Significance of Various Aspects in Drawings by Educationally Subnormal Children". Journal of Mental Science. 96 (405): 951–975. doi:10.1192/bjp.96.405.951. ISSN 0368-315X.
  • Reviewed:

Created by Llewee (talk). Self-nominated at 19:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Educationally Subnormal; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• AGF on the hook citation, it is interesting. The article is neutral and uses the correct inline citations. I was able to spot check several references and confirm them. Article was started and nominated within the timeframe and has 6270 characters which makes it long enough. I am sure there are many other hooks which we could find in the article if this one is deemed too risqué. I found it interesting enough to read the article. I did not find copyright issues and the copyvio detector does not alert to any violations. This is the nominator's third nomination so no QPQ is needed. Bruxton (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Capitalisation

Hi Llewee, the article should be at Educationally subnormal, see WP:NCCAPS, do you mind if I move it? The DYK nomination does not need to be moved, but the hook should say "educationally subnormal" in lower case. TSventon (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Fixed--Llewee (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Should the GA nomination listing be updated? Otherwise the GA review page will have the wrong capitalisation. TSventon (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SyntheticSystems (talk · contribs) 20:52, 21 February 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 but lead could be bigger.	On hold
(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.	Pass
(b) (focused)	In-depth coverage but could be better.	Pass

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 are good.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Images need alt text.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	Good.

Hi SyntheticSystems, thank you for reviewing the article. I've added images. Do you think any other changes are needed to the article?--Llewee (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I think you could expand the lead a little bit. SyntheticSystems (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi SyntheticSystems, what do you think of the article now?--Llewee (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Looks good. I think you might need page numbers for the first reference. SyntheticSystems (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

SyntheticSystems, It's quite a short paper and the relevant parts span pretty much the whole thing.--Llewee (talk) 14:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)