Talk:English Poor Laws/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Initial comments
The article is looking good at the moment, but I can see a few signs that a small selection of issues need to be resolved before the article can be passed. Most obviously at the moment: referencing. The availability of sources is obviously great, so references covering statements like "This change was in part due to changing attitudes on the nature and causes of poverty - there was for the first time an attitude that society had a responsibility to protect its more vulnerable members." are really a must for me.

Another point, which I think ought to be considered (not necessarily a blocker though) is the sectioning of the article. Are we following a chronological structure or what? It's not overly obvious at first from the table of contents, which ideally it should be. "Opposition" - to the old law, new law, laws in general?

Anyhow, good work so far, and I'm looking forward to passing the article soon. I can draw up a more thorough review, lend a hand tweaking the smaller things, and so forth, but at the moment you're obviously better placed than me, so I'll leave it a few days. :) - Jarry1250 [ humorous – discuss ] 10:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have added references for everything with a tag and where I haven't been able to find a reference I have changed the statment to something (more informative) that can be referenced. I've Removed some images with the "wrong" creative commons licences, removed some incorrect bits in the Tudor Poor Laws section. The Opposition section has been moved and changed to reflect the fact it is about opposition to both poor laws. Francium12 (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, a definite improvement. Unfortunately, I won't be able to officially pass the article until next week as I'm going away, and there are a few things left to do: a few hanging sentences at the end of paragraphs remain, unreferenced; Scotland and Ireland, and Historiography, as sections, seems a little awkward at the moment and need referencing; the lead could do with a couple of extra sentences about opposition and other topics. Good work so far, - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 16:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Couple of non-reviewer comments
Hi, I'd like to add a couple of additional, drive-by comments.
 * The quotation in the lead describing the Poor Law as a "welfare state in miniature" strikes me as somewhat unbalanced, and I don't really think it's supported by the body. For example, the body notes that The Old Poor Law allowed for despotic overseer behaviour, and for beatings. It describes how, under the New Poor Law, "The primary problem was that in order to make the diet of the Workhouse inmates "less eligible" than what they could expect outside, it would be necessary to starve the inmates beyond an acceptable level. It was for this reason that other ways were found to deter entrance to the Workhouses." Those are not the kind of ideas that are particularly prominent in the Beveridge Report. Something along the lines of this summary would seem to me to be better balanced.
 * These seem contradictory:
 * "The origins of the English Poor Law system can be traced back as far as the fifteenth century".
 * "In 1388, the Statute of Cambridge was passed, making each individual parish responsible for administering poor relief to the impotent poor"
 * The lead states that legislation can be traced to 1536 but that date doesn't appear anywhere in the body.


 * The Further Reading section shows that is no shortage of scholarly sources available, yet most of the article seems to be sourced to broad-based online material. As far as I can see, many of these source are not exactly bad, but they don't really strike me as the best to use for building an encyclopedia.
 * Peter Higinbotham seems to have made himself into something of an expert on workhouses, and has published a couple of books, but he's essentially an amateur working in his spare time. These look better to me. Mary Bloy doesn't appear to be published, and doesn't seem to have any particular expertise in this area. Tim Lambert decided to create a "World History Encyclopedia" because if you know a bit about your subject, you may as well create your own website for everyone to read.

I don't want to be overly critical, but it does strike me that the article would be improved if it relied more heavily on some of the more scholarly sources available, and I definitely think the lead needs some work.--MoreThings (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I accept there is a lack of scholary sources but its only something I can rectify when I have access to a University subscription service (isn't it more of an issue for a FA rather than a GA?)I am the only person working on this article! But to be fair both :Peter Higinbotham and Mary Bloy are accurate and were in many ways more detailed/extensive than the textbooks I used at A-level to study the Poor Law. The issue about the "start" of the coverage is a good one. I suppose 1388 is the one we should use as the Statute of Cambridge was a Poor Law of sorts - need some decent refs for this. Yes I think the quote in the lead can go Francium12 (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Or even 1349 according to Francium12 (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree regarding the sources as far as GA/FA is concerned. It was the quotation that really jumped out at me, and I think it would be better off without that. The rest were just a few thoughts that occurred while reading it through.


 * Britannica has it as a body of laws developed in the 16th-century, codified in 1587-98, and maintained and modified until after WW2. That's fairly close to our first sentence. From there I wonder if would be better to avoid anything along the lines of "...can be traced back as far as xxxx" but stick with "...there is much earlier Tudor [or perhaps late medieval]..." so sidestepping the need to give a specific start date.


 * Things like "The history of the Poor Laws...is usually divided between [the reign of Elizabeth and 1834]" could also do with a tweak because, as this article shows, the history of the Laws covers a greater period than that. --MoreThings (talk) 01:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I now believe this article to be of GA Status. I have created just about every article in the Category:Poor Law so might take a break from the topic once it has passed Francium12 (talk) 12:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Final draft
Article is very close to a pass now, but before I do pass it I would like to see a few more citation details filled in - there are still some very short / vague ones. Surely it must be possible to fill in a few details? Reflinks can't do all the work for you. Thanks, - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 13:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)