Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Education

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconEducation Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page 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.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement![edit]

Please note that Exploration, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by MusikBot talk 00:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team[reply]

Increasing coverage of competitions for school pupils[edit]

I am asking for the support of this community to move the following page from drafts to articles: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft_talk:Baltic_Chemistry_Olympiad. That will help increase the coverage of chemistry competitions – one of the educational tools for attracting school pupils to science.

Wikipedia covers International Olympiads. However, there should be more pages to raise awareness. I have written a detailed overview of the Baltic Chemistry Olympiad, Competition, and Challenge. It is one of the oldest regional yet international competitions, which, over 30 years, generated over 180 peer-reviewed problems for training students and popularising chemistry.

Olunet (talk) 10:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please approve "Ladakh institutes list"[edit]

Please approve Draft:List of academic and research institutes in Ladakh. Thanks. (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Example of inadequately informed local perspective[edit]

Regarding the 2021 discussion about whether to delete the Invitational education article, as discussed here:

I would note that the early expressed perspectives of @User:DGG, @User:Trainsandotherthings, and @User:Athel cb reflected particular biased and academically uninformed views regarding educational theory and research, as presented in their comments and votes (which evidenced no due diligence on the question). That is, these voters undertook no investigation of the matter of article subject notability (as WP defines it, and other editors would go on to cite).

[To these editors—and those alike deciding issues on impulse—I would offer encouragement to greater investigative effort, and thus greater objectivity, before casting votes. (Who has time for such? Précisément—we all ought only vote when time permits objective evaluation.)]

To the benefit of WikiProject_Education, that article, the encyclopedia, and its readers, other editors did exhibit the commitment to due diligence, and thus arrived at the proper conclusion—that the subject is indeed clearly notable, even if, in fact, the article was poorly written and insufficiently sourced. I note @User: TipsyElephant and @User: Andrew_Davidson as particualrly noteworthy in their contributing to the debate and vote in a way that honours the encyclopedia and its Policies, Guidelines, and aspirations.

I write this as a former longstanding registered editor, now retired, and as a former academic, not in Education but in the "hard sciences" (in STEM), and as one not much a fan of most educational theorising (and thus, impulsively, in the same camp as DGG, Trains, and Athel). (One needn't agree or support concepts to acknowledge they exist and need clear and fair-minded description.)

[I would also state parenthetically that I've the very highest of regard for @User:Athel cb's comparable impulses with regard to "enzymic catalysis" (as it was termed by a late mutual friend), an area where I believe he'd never gladly have suffered superficial analyses by others.]

Cheers, AC-B, and all. (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just took a look at the article – invitational education – and find that it is a shambles. Cleaning it up ought to be easy but my experience is that it would be a thankless task and would degenerate again. So it goes. It is on my watchlist so I shall await further developments. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The AFD was from three years ago when I was a very inexperienced editor, and the discussion was closed as a keep. Are you really surprised that as a new editor my AfD participation wasn't perfect? Is your goal here just to act like you're morally superior to others? I find your tone here insulting. Do not ping me further regarding this matter, as I will not be engaging with you. Feel free to improve the article yourself, but I have zero interest in the subject at this point, which I have not engaged with in any way for three years. And for the record, my AfD participation shows a very high match rate to the ultimate outcomes. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Mary McLeod Bethune[edit]

Mary McLeod Bethune has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 04:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]