Wikipedia:Peer review/Industrial Revolution/archive2

Industrial Revolution
There has been a lot of work done on the article since March 2006. (I mistakenly said 2007 when first posting.) I recently got involved and shuffled sentences into paragraphs in the introduction and shuffeled around sections to re-structure the overall document. I've also added images. It seems like it reads pretty well and it might be time for another review. I just found this review page, but while it seems like some comments might still apply a lot of them no longer do. (The one specific question I would have would be regarding using the present tense in the sentence ending the first paragraph of the introduction (is v.s. was) -- in that the Industrial Revolution continues to develop and continues to change lives today.) --kop 18:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

March 2006 Review
Comments most welcome - thanks! --PopUpPirate 10:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

--maclean 25 23:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * History is written by the victorious. I am glad to see that the article gives arguments as presented by historians, and doesn't present their arguments as facts. Yes, there were many potential causes, but which were influential and which coincidental...we don't know, they are just arguments.
 * There is currently a lack of sufficient inline citations. Below are some instances/phrases that might require them (note: some can be simply re-worded to avoid citation):
 * "with some historians seeing the Revolution as..."
 * "...are also cited as factors,"
 * "One question of active interest to historians is..."
 * "Numerous factors have been suggested, including ecology, government, and culture." (either relate this to specific points to come in the text or perhaps provide a general reference)
 * " Benjamin Elman argues that..." (can you point the reader to where he makes this argument?)
 * "Kenneth Pomeranz, in the Great Divergence, argues that..." (currently does not appear in the references)
 * "modern estimates of per capita income..." (whose calculations are these?)
 * "the noted historian Rajni Palme Dutt has been quoted as saying, 'The capital...'" (ref quote)
 * "Some have stressed the importance of natural..."
 * "Another theory is that Great Britain was ..."
 * "...is the origin of the modern engineering industry." (just seems like a bold statement that could get challenged)
 * In "Causes", combine the two sentences about epidemics and larger workforce into one (use a semicolon if you have to) because they are both part of one thought, not two separate thoughts (sentences)
 * Why does "large domestic market" cause get its own paragraph but larger workforce, Agricultural Revolution, Technological innovation and colonial expansion have to share?
 * "...a condition that holds true even into the 21st century.", "...with modern concepts of automatic illegality." (keep the article on topic)
 * The "Lunar society" section appears to be a counter-argument of the "Protestant work ethic" sub-sub-section, rather than a separte theme like Protestantism. Consider merging these two sections.
 * Why does "Protestant work ethic" get a separate section opposed to the other causes listed in "Causes for occurrence in Great Britain"?
 * In the "Innovations" section intro, orient the paragraph to take the reader down from the general to the specific (ie. innovations such as making iron/steel and harnessing water/steam power resulted in inventions such as steam engine and flying shuttles...), and also introduce concepts discuss in the sub-sections like tramission/publication of ideas
 * Avoid those one-sentence paragraphs like "Josiah Wedgwood and Matthew Boulton were other prominent early industrialists.", "One of the earliest reformers of factory conditions was Robert Owen.", "During the Industrial Revolution, these different methods were improved and developed." and "In 1842, Cotton Workers in England staged a widespread strike."
 * I'm not sure the Luddites paragraph in the "Factories" sub-sub-section fits, maybe just keep them in the "Luddites" sub-section
 * In "Mining" please clarify what this sentence is saying: "Coal mining in Britain, particuarly in South Wales is of great age.", also the "Mining" section seems simplistic compared the other sections surrounding it, consider expanding (Innovation)
 * In "Metallurgy" I don't think the summary style is intended for use of articles that are still
 * In "Transportation" consider merging the sub-sub-sections "Navigable rivers", "Coastal sail", and "Canals" into one section about transport along waterways
 * In "Transportation" explain what each element meant to the industrial revolution (how it impacted, further enhanced/degraded 'progress'), rather than a straight explanation of the topic.
 * The introduction of "Social effects" should be more descriptive, and consider replacing the "&" with "and".
 * In "Child labour", "prehistoric times" is over-kill. Replace the external link with a footnote.
 * In "Housing situation" (odd title, maybe consider 'Public Health' or 'Slums' or 'Urban housing', etc.) the Sanitary Report (1842) is quoted without a reference. Btw, that is an excellent choice for a source.
 * Re-visit the "Luddites" section. They were not just a bunch of unemployed machine-smashers, but protester/activists against the new way of life that industrialization creates (ie. the new lower class; the large pool of unskilled labor that capitalists drool over). Smashing machines was a symbolic/rallying-the-troops (and I guess therapeutic) thing.
 * "Other effects" valiantly trys to lump a bunch of other changes to society into a few paragraphs, but it needs better organization. The start a new paragraph at "mass migration of rural families into urban areas" as this is about rural-to-urban migration whereas the previous sentences were discussing international effects. After this it seems like just a bunch of other effects were thrown together. Try to better relate them to one another in order to keep them in the same paragraph (or elaborate one piece into another paragraph - environmental effects like coal consumption might be a good candidate).
 * Consider moving "Marxism" and "Romanticism" into "Intellectual paradigms" (it is plural) and removing the "Criticism" heading.


 * Many thanks for your comments, valid points which I intend to address - thanks! --PopUpPirate 01:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Incorporated a lot of your ideas for the first bit and started backtracking with the references, there's a lot of work here, might send it to AID --PopUpPirate 22:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The article seems too Anglo-centric. Obviously the IR began in Britain, but other countries contributed and its impacts were felt worldwide. An Industrial Revolution in Britain article would be great, but this is just Industrial Revolution. Other countries need more attention. Even the wording of the article in sections like "Navigable rivers" have language assuming Britain is the focus of the article (not to mention it has "Main article: Rivers of Great Britain")--Bkwillwm 09:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Lead is completly inadequate - it should be significantly expanded. Lose the 'Overview' section, merge everything from it into the lead. Lead is overview, after all. Some sections are stub-sections and should be expanded, ex. 'Intellectual paradigms' (which for some reason has one and only one subsection - aren't there more paradigms?), or 'Luddites'. More inline citations are needed. The article mentions Weber and Marx, but what about Durkheim?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Automated review
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 14:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
 * The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.[?]
 * If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?] I'd move the Watt steam engine top right.
 * There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
 * Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -  between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 6 miles, use 6 miles, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 6&amp;nbsp;miles.[?]
 * Per Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading  ==Magellan's journey== , use  ==Journey== .[?]
 * Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Summary style.[?]
 * There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged.
 * There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
 * arguably
 * is considered
 * might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
 * Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: meter (A) (British: metre), organise (B) (American: organize), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), analyze (A) (British: analyse), travelled (B) (American: traveled), sulphur (B) (American: sulfur).
 * Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
 * Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “ All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
 * As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]