 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Can it be made clearer? edit
I'm sorry to say so, but the article does not properly make sense of the nature and definition of the less eligibility principle. All I get is a circular reasoning that conditions in workhouses were made bad and deterrent due to that principle, and here I am made to understand that the principle was expressed in those bad and deterrent conditions, but not precisely what "less eligible" means. This nonsensical aspect may be due to the fact that "eligible" now means "fit to be chosen", while at the time the word may have been synonymous with "desirable", but it would be good to state this clearly. --Svartalf 21:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems quite simple to me. The conditions in the workhouses had to be worse than outside. E.g the food worse than avalible outside Therefore people wouldn't want to enter them and poor costs would be kept down. 172.212.231.157 21:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
POV? edit
Has the POV tag been added as a piece of vandalism. there doesnt seem to be any POV problems with this article... Francium12 10:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Except perhaps, the assertion that "[t]he developers of less eligibility were in the main well-meaning and high-principled people", which seems to be a subjective view that, if attributable to a notable historian should be cited as such. Antony1024 (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)