Talk:The Demands of Liberal Education

The Demands of Liberal Education has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: March 29, 2015. (Reviewed version).

A fact from The Demands of Liberal Education appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 25 February 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that The Demands of Liberal Education concludes that parental school choice limits capacity for autonomy and, consequently, individual liberty?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/February. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Demands of Liberal Education.

Wikipedia

Education Low‑importance

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Literature / Social and political / Contemporary Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophical literature
	Social and political philosophy
	Contemporary philosophy

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

DYK nomination[edit]

{{Did you know nominations/The Demands of Liberal Education}} czar ⨹ 07:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: The Herald (talk · contribs) 15:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have the full review within a day. Thanks. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 15:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria[edit]

Good Article Status – Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

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.^[1]

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);^[2] and

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

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

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

^[4]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

^[5]

(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.^[6]

Review[edit]

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments and discussion[edit]

...book by Meira Levinson that... could be changed to ...book by an American author Meira Levinson that... or the like. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 15:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some minor Dab Fixes required. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 15:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The term citizenry could be better explained. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 15:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The third para of summary section needs a bit more trims ti remove the repeated ..argues that... -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 15:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good to leave a redlink of Meira Levinson anywhere in the article. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 15:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any info on the discussion of the book in American Philosophical Association's 2002 annual meeting will do, but good. I mean, you can say what they said and reviewed and commented and the like. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 15:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review so far. I believe the above have been addressed. I think declaring Levinson an author would be redundant, since she wrote the book, and I'm not sure it's relevant that she's American unless it's suggested for some reason in some style guide section. "Citizenry" is used in a straightforward manner as "subjects of the state", but if it still appears as jargon, I can put that phrase in a parenthetical. I don't believe Meira Levinson passes the general notability guideline or WP:SCHOLAR quite yet, so I didn't redlink her. I don't have details from the APA 2002 meeting past the published proceedings, though I elaborated a bit more from that document. czar ⨹ 09:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result[edit]

The article passed the GA review to fetch a GA status. All looks good and meets all the criterion for a GA. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 12:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional notes[edit]

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.

[2] Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

[4] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]