Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Prison education/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 23 October 2021 [1].

---

Prison education

Nominator(s): Damien Linnane (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

This article is about education within the prison system. I first nominated this article back in 2018, and have address the issues raised at that FAC, notably the lack of coverage in the History section towards Africa and South America. However, as I noted at the first FAC, gaps remain in that section, as the history of prison education in countries is rarely written about. For example, I could only find one book written about the history of prison education in Australia; in it the author explicitly said his motivation for writing it was that nobody else had ever tried to cover the subject. Coverage in developing nations in particular is often non-existent. What's in that section is a summary of all the sources myself and other editors could find. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review

File:Educator Ange Leech at Eastern Goldfields Regional Prison March 2019 credit Tom Joyner.jpg is the only fishy photo. The uploader has many photos deleted. This one is small and lacks OTRS or EXIF data, leading me to doubt that he is the creator of it. Also, I am concerned about the heavy use of quoteboxes in the article. Inevitably they end up emphasizing some viewpoints above others by giving them extra space and setting them off. (t · c) buidhe 23:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: He isn't the creator of it. As per both the title and the summary at the file, the photo was taken by journalist Tom Joyner. User:The Little Platoon, who uploaded the file, told me he received written permission from Tom Joyner to upload the photos under a creative commons licence. What do we need to do to have the image accepted?

Also three of the four quoteboxes are given for things that I could not find opposing views for. The first quotebox in the Asian history is the opinion of the Chinese government that crime is often caused by a lack of education; I did not find any material that opposed this view in Asia. The second quote box is from a prisoner emphasizing why it is difficult to study in prison; I did not find a single prisoner stating it is too easy to study in prison. The third quote box is the opinion of the United Nations; I think that is notable and no organisation that large has spoken out against prison education. The only quotebox for which opposing views really exists is the final one, as there are indeed also politicians opposed to prison education. In this case the quote's purpose is to explain in greater detail the referenced quote in the prose regarding media induced fears. Considering due weight with respect to the amount of literature supporting the argument for prison education rather than opposing it, I think this single quote is appropriate. I do note the article does close with a quote from a politician opposing prison education for balance though. I don't understand what you mean by 'setting them off'. Can you explain more about why each of the four quotes is a problem? Damien Linnane (talk) 00:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Usually if you are uploading images not in the public domain that someone else has created, one of two things are required: 1) OTRS permission or 2) an external website where the images are marked as being available under a free license. See c:Commons:Volunteer Response Team.

I believe that quoteboxes often give rise to an undue weight problem, and frankly I don't see how these quotes add much to the encyclopedia value of the article to begin with. Either they should be covered in the article text (preferably paraphrased to avoid overlong quotations) or they just aren't relevant. I am far from the only editor who believes that the quotebox template should be generally avoided in article space—it says so in the template documentation. (t · c) buidhe 01:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm in the process of trying to get OTRS permission. I'm happy for the image to remain removed until it is obtained.

Regarding the quotes I guess we just have a difference of opinion regarding style and what adds value to an article. I can appreciate four quotes might be a bit much though. Having read back over these quotes I think the United Nations one adds the least value to the article. I'm removing it now. Thanks for the image review btw. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47

Addressed comments

For this part, Sweden is considered to be a pioneer in the field., could you attribute in the prose who considers Sweden to be a pioneer? I think I originally derived that sentence from my summary of the book Nordic Prison Education: A Lifelong Learning Perspective, which is referenced at the end of the following sentence, though doesn't explicitly use that term. I've since found and added an inline citation to an academic article that explicitly calls them a "pioneer" in the field though. Neither the journal nor the author have articles on Wikipedia, so I don't really see much point in naming them in the prose essentially it will just be a name nobody has heard of. Let me know if you think it needs to be better clarified to the reader somehow though. That does make sense to me. Since this sentence has a citation, readers could look at that for further information. I see your point that putting this information into the prose could lead to some awkwardness so I think you are correct here. Aoba47 (talk) 00:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC) At the risk of sounding incredibly foolish, could you link chaplain in this part, In the United States, prisoners were given religious instruction by chaplains, as I am honestly unfamiliar with this concept? Also, do you think a link for religious instruction would be beneficial? Done. I am slightly confused by this part, farming skills at the countries agricultural prisons. Shouldn't it be the country's agricultural prisons instead? Fixed. This may be silly or unnecessary, but for this part, Other types of vocational training, such as certain forms of woodwork, would it be worthwhile to add a link for woodworking for readers who may want to learn more about this practice? Woodworking is actually mentioned earlier in the history section, so I've now linked it at its first mention there. Thank you for linking this on the first instance. Apologies for missing the first instance. It does remind me of how American schools used to have shop classes, but when I got to high school, it was not a thing anymore due to safety issues (and I am assuming other reasons as well). I think this is why I found the woodworking mentions to be interesting. Aoba47 (talk) 00:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC) For this part, introduced a bill entitled the Kids Before Cons Act, should the bill be in italics? I cannot remember the last time I saw a bill title so I am uncertain about how it should be represented. Looking at other articles that mention bills, they don't seem to be italicised. I would remove the italics. From my understanding, the bill title is just presented as Kids Before Cons Act without any other stylizations. Aoba47 (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC) Meant to do this earlier. It's done now though. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC) I have a question about this sentence: A prison educational program created by Bard College has a recidivism rate of 4% for people who only attended the course and 2.5% for those who completed it. Would it be possible to include a link to the Bard Prison Initiative article? Sure, that's a much better link. Thanks for suggesting it. For this part, A prison education program in Ukraine, I do not think Ukraine should be linked as it is a pretty major country that I would imagine most readers would be familiar with, and I do not think countries are generally linked in the article. Agreed. Removed. Here are my comments so far. I hope they are helpful. I will read through the article again once everything has been addressed. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 20:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC) Hi Aoba47. Thanks so much for your comments. I've made replies to everything. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC) I am glad that I could help. I will read through the article again later in the week. I have my birthday tomorrow so I will be off Wikipedia then, but I will return to this before the end of the week. I do not think I will find anything else (prose-wise as that is the focus of my review), but I want to make sure to thoroughly look through the article to help with your FAC as much as possible. Aoba47 (talk) 00:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC) Thanks so much Aoba47. Hope you have a great birthday tomorrow! Damien Linnane (talk) 02:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC) Thank you for your patience with my review. The prose looks good to me. I just have a quick question below: Was there any coverage on how COVID-19 affected prison education? COVID has severely impacted education in general (and there is even a separate Wikipedia article about it), so I would imagine there would be discussions on the challenges that prison education programs have and are currently facing because of the pandemic. @Aoba47: You know I never thought to look at that, but mentioning how the pandemic impacted prison education was a great suggestion, so thanks. I've just added a paragraph on the pandemic to the Challenges section. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 00:47, 25 September 2021 (UTC) Thank you for adding this to the article. I honestly only thought about this today while I was reading about how COVID is affecting the school system in my area (and just for some context with that, I live in Florida). You have done a very good job with finding citations for this and integrating this information into the article. Aoba47 (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC) Other than that, the article looks good to me. I am not expert in this matter. Once my above question has been answered, I will support this FAC for promotion. I hope you are having a great start to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything. I support the FAC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Eddie891

• " The first major education program aimed at rehabilitating prisoners was launched in 1876. Zebulon Brockway, the superintendent of Elmira Reformatory in New York, is credited as being the first to implement such a program." saying "the first...the first" in such quick succession feels kind of redundant. Can this be rephrased-- perhaps the sentences combined?

  Reworded.

• "from 70 to four" MOS:NUMNOTES

  Fixed.

• " in South America in comparison to the Western world" I wonder if you could pick a better phrase than "western world" because I don't think it's universally agreed upon most of SA isn't 'western'-- cf. File:Western World Latin America torn countries.png

  Changed to "Europe and North America".

• The Dominican Republic is a North American nation (?)

  I think you meant to point out that I accidentally put it in the South American category. My mistake. I've since decided to create a separate section for the Caribbean.

• Do you have the sourcing to generally add sentences like "other nations on this continent do not widely offer prison education"? I think that might be useful to increasing a feel of comprehensiveness

  Are you referring to the fact that, as per the nomination intro, there are gaps in the literature in the history section? Unfortuantely I didn't find any other sources that explicitly said other countries on a continent didn't offer prison education.

• No mention of india? https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/S2055-364120210000037005/full/html, https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1985-26360-001

  I've added a paragraph on the country. Thanks for finding the sources! The one that was the most helpful was only written recently, after I wrote this article.

• I'm not convinced that the listing of seemingly random surveys in a few countries is really necessary-- couldn't those citation simply back up the first sentence "People in prison systems worldwide are consistently less educated than the general population. " and have that be enough?

  Yeah that's a good point. It may seem random, but that's the statistics for every country that I could find. The paragraph just grew slowly over time as I found new countries to add. I've decided to relocate this information to the 'Reasons' sub-section as a single sentence.

Working through... The prose is in general in very good shape, I'll probably have mostly minor comments. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your comments Eddie891, I really appreciate it. I'll ping you again when I finish with the India sources, though feel free to make more comments in the meantime. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@Eddie891: I've read the sources on India and have built a new paragraph accordingly. Let me know what you think. Damien Linnane (talk) 07:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

" seven out of ten inmates in the US will have re-offended and half will be back in prison" Can you rephrase this so it doesn't appear to be making predictions as to what prisoners will definitely do in the future (that has already passed)

Done.

I wonder if sources like https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6743246/ has any more up-to-date recidivism rates?

Looking at that table there's only one updated figure for the countries I've already cited, but it's only by one year and they count the rate using a different method so I'd prefer to keep the figure I currently have. It is excellent to get all the latest available figures in one place though. I'm considering replacing the current format where I give the rates from individual countries with a single-sentence summary based on table three at that source, along the lines of 'As of 2020, the latest available data for re-offending across 15 countries after two years was X%, with the highest figure being Denmark at 63% (2013) and the lowest being Norway with 20% (2005)'. What do you think of that?

@Eddie891: I've overhauled the recidivism sub-section. I think it's much better now. Let me know what you think. Damien Linnane (talk) 10:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I like that better, too, thanks Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:04, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

while in custody had only a 27.2% chance of re-offending" I'm not sure that this is how you want to use 'chance'-- it's not like re-offending is something that randomly happens to people.

Done. Damien Linnane (talk) 07:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

perhaps the costs in 'cost' should be emphasized to be averages? I doubt each prisoner is the same expense, if that makes sense...

Done.

do you have a year for the washington state institute study?

Added.

Is the 2013 forbes article by Glenn C. Altschuler and David J. Skorton? Given they both have links, it might be more powerful to attribute their quote to them, if that's the case

Hey great find! Thanks. I've done this now.

"it is compulsory for inmates in South Africa to complete at least Grade 9 of schooling" to me, this almost sounds like the inmates cannot be released uuntil they have completed that much schooling-- is that the case?

Based on my research I would assume not, though maybe in South Africa things are completely different. The source doesn't explicitly say, though sources I've read on other countries don't delay an inmates release if they happen to fail their compulsory education classes.

I think that's just about it on prose from me... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:04, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again Eddie891, I've replied to all your points. Let me know if you have any other concerns. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses, I'm satisfied to support on prose. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from Homeostasis07

I was going to review this a week or so ago, but didn't want to step on Eddie's toes, as they seemed to be raising the same issues I would've brought up. Having re-read the article at this point, I see no further issues to raise. The prose is clear and engaging, and the sourcing seems immaculate to me (almost entirely academic sources). Happy to support. Kudos on all the hard work Damien. Hope this works out for you. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 19:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review from Amakuru - Pass

General

• Is there a reason why some book sources are given inline, while others are cited to a bibliography?

  I think I cited books in the bibliography if I used them more than once, so as to be able to use the SFN template to specify the page number, which I thought looked cleaner than pasting the entire source again but with a different page number. Let me know if you want all of them moved to the bibliography section regardless of whether they are only cited once. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Some archived websites have retrieval dates, e.g. 24, 163 while others do not, e.g. 19, 21, 22. Make consistent.
• 20: This seems to cite the Social Science Research Network as a publisher, whereas it should I think be cited to the University of Massachusetts Law Review journal, volume 11
• 21: Citing to "Board, The Editorial" is a bit odd, as this is not a human forename and surname. Suggest either "The Editorial Board", or even omit altogether as it's not particularly informative and can be treated like any other article which lacks a specific author.
• 19 & 22: The source has them as "Erica L." and "David J." but the middle initial is not given here; initially I assumed you were omitting them all, but then 35 has an "Alison J."; so some checking is needed for consistency

  I fixed the ones you mentioned. I'll go through later and search for others. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• 23: UNESCO is a publisher rather than a work, so probably shouldn't be italicised
• 28: Has author names that can be included: Gabriel Zinny and Diego Gorgal
• 29 & 30: Labelling this as "DiTella" is somewhat confusing, given that the authors in the listed source are "Alzúa, María Laura; Rodriguez, Catherine; Villa, Edgar". I'd prefer to give those authors in the short cite rather than the editor, unless there's a good reason. (Also note that DiTella should have a space in it).
• 30: Is there a reason why the adjacent pages are separated with a , rather than a – ?

  Nope, just an oversight. Fixed. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• 31: dead link
• 39 - it says "Source AAP" at the bottom, so you might want to include an agency = [[Australian Associated Press]] parameter
• 40 - effectively a deadlink; flip to use the archived version
• 42 - link redirects
• 46 - has a JSTOR available [2]
• 57 - the date on the source is 29 September not 27 September
• 62 - "Experiences from Central Asia, South America, North Africa and Europe" is given in italics as if it's a work/website, but in fact it's just a sub-title. Suggest DVV International as the publisher
• 63 - [3] gives page numbers of 525-532
• 72 - needs a publisher of some sort, e.g. Australian Government Productivity Commission
• 74 - seven different pages given, to cover two sentences. Seems a bit too broad, is there a reason for this?

  Yes. The information on different countries is given in different chapters. So pages 36-37 cover education for prisoners on remand in Denmark, while pages 52-53 cover the same topic for Finland, etc. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• 75 - what does the "4769608639" at the end refer to?

  Honestly I don't remember. Removed. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• 77 - dead link
• 70 & 79 - same source
• 81 - it looks like ASCILITE is the publisher, while "Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Innovation, Practice and Research in the Use of Educational Technologies in Tertiary Education" or something is the work
• 82 - authors Amy Antonio and Helen Farley
• 84 - "nternational Journal of Asian Social Science" - missing an I
• 86 - dead link

Pausing there for now; will continue with this later, and then add spot checks and other checks.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Amakuru. Thanks so much for the amount of effort you've put into this. To be honest I'm a bit embarrassed about the number of flaws. Anyway, I've either addressed everything above, or made a reply. Rather than clogging up the page by replying 'Done' to every item above I'm just replying to the questions and things that might not be resolved yet. Also I removed source [79] to address your concern, so keep in mind that sources you listed above after that are now one number out of the order you gave them. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Damien Linnane: no worries, to be honest most of these are extremely nitpicking minor issues anyway... I initially wasn't even expecting to see anything because they all looked quite well done at first glance! Anyway, thanks for the replies and I'll plough on with the rest. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

(New numbers follow, as of this version).

• 90 - Ministry of Justice probably doesn't need italics
• 95 - has a JSTOR available
• 96 - could give a publisher, which is either Triple J or Australian Broadcasting Corporation
• 98 - as far as I can tell this has a journal (Frontiers in Communication), a volume=6 and a DOI and ISSN number
• 100 - a DOI is available
• 101 - the link provided does not land you at the top of the page, but instead at reference 13 for some reason
• 103 - although the title says 2009, I think the actual publication date is 2010
• 104 - the page number says 2010, but the document only has 33 pages. Assume this is a typo with a year inserted instead of a page number.
• 109 - I'd imagine American Enterprise Institute is a publisher rather than a work, so not italics
• 110 - I'm not a major fan of wide page ranges, even in journal articles, but it seems this is an exception to others in using a single page number rather than the range of the whole article (4–17)

  I don't understand what the problem is. Presumably, all the information cited here is on one page, whereas in others, a topic might be covered in detail over several. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Damien Linnane: I'm alluding to the topic that was discussed here: Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources/Archive_51#Do_cites_to_journal_articles_need_specific_page_numbers_for_each_fact?. As you probably know, journal articles typically come with a page range, which denotes the pages of the parent journal on which the article in question resides. Furthermore, this page range often forms an integral part of the citation for that article. The problem then, is that many editors like to use the pages=nn parameter of {{cite journal}} to show that article page range. However, it is also IMHO of even greater importance, on Wikipedia at least, for specific facts to point to specific pages where the exact information conveyed is to be found. So do we use the pages parameter for for the first use, or for the second? Ideally there would be a separate parameter for each. Anyway, what I was alluding to above is that in ref 110 I believe you have pinpointed a specific page, while in other cases you've put the page range of the whole journal article. On reflection I'd say don't change anything, however, because asking for a broader range would be cutting off my nose to spite my face, given that I don't agree with that line! Anyway, I'll be back for the spot checks later this evening hopefully. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• 112 - don't really need to say "-Unesco" in the title, that's not what the top of the document says anyway
• 113 - The Atlantic could be linked, although this is the second occurrence so perhaps you have chosen not to. Make sure you're consistent one way or the other with that, anyway.
• 114 - dead link
• 118 - minor point, but most versions I'm seeing don't have a space before (er)
• 126 - could link to the more specific BBC News, and I also don't think this is an italics one
• 26 - (sorry, jumping back) - ditto BBC News, also this one is marked as dead when it's actually still live
• 132 - Correctional Service of Canada probably shouldn't be italicised
• 133 - ditto
• 135 - author is Lorna Knowles. And is ABC News a publisher?
• 138 & 139 - Washington State Institute for Public Policy italics? (also note that you linked this both times, so see my note at ref 113 above)
• 141 - dead link; and UCLA School of Public Policy and Social Research, Department of Policy italics; and we have a page on this institution at UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs
• 143 - no link to The Nation? Also, wrong year; should be 2015 not 2013
• 145 - check italics again
• 150 - BBC News not italic
• 151 - dead link
• 158 - perhaps Ministry of Justice rather than gov.uk? Not sure actually.
• 160 - issue=1
• 162 - 07/12/2017 most likely means December 7, as this is a European publication. In US format it would be July 12, but either way it can't be December 12!
• 163 & 164 - needs a publisher, as without the link it would be hard to decipher what this is. Productivity Commission or something.
• 166 - this one does say Productivity Commission (in italics which it probably shouldn't be), but now doesn't mention Report on Government Services
• 169 - dead link
• 170 - ditto
• 172 - italics

(from the bibliography)

• Alzua - most book titles are in italics but this one isn't; any reason?

  The book title is in italics. It's the chapter title that isn't. I suppose what looks out of place is that I've external linked the chapter title, not the book title. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Bowdon - you seem to have missed out author Russell G. Carpenter
• International Prison Commission - the title page lists Samuel J. Barrows in some sort of role here; perhaps an editor, given that the individual chapters all have authors
• Mariner, James; Cavallaro, Michael - not sure where these names come from, but the link says the authors are Mariner, Joanne and Cavallaro, James
• Norval, Morris - are you sure this shouldn't be "Morris, Norval"? Also, you've missed out David J. Rothman

  Turns out Rothman is the sole author and also one of the two editors (alongside Morris). I've removed editors entirely and just placed Rothman as the author. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Nordic Council of Ministers - I don't think "Business & Economic" really belongs here; that's the "subject" that Google Books has assigned to this, rather than a publisher name
• Ramsland and Sampson - all other books here have a Google Books link, but not these two. Any reason?

  Just an oversight I guess. Fixed. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Phew, that's about it! I'll come back tomorrow hopefully with a few spot checks, and double check that all the sources are reliable. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again Amakuru. As per last time I've only replied to questions and things that may not be fixed yet. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Amakuru ? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah shoot, this one had slipped my mind. I'll finish it off tomorrow. Sorry!  — Amakuru (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Spot checks

(now looking at this version)

• 2 - mostly checks out, although the book says that the education was only mandatory for those under 35, a detail not mentioned in the article.
• 3 - checks out.
• 10 - checks out.
• 11 - checks out.
• 28 - checks out.
• 31 - checks out (for all points).
• 48 - checks out.
• 169 - checks out.
• 172 - checks out.

Given all the above, I'm satisfied that the sourcing is accurate, the fixes you've done look good, and I'm not seeing any dubious or unreliable sources. Happy to pass. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your review, I really appreciate it. I've updated the article to mention the under 35 issue. Damien Linnane (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment by GMG

• I shouldn't be considered a neutral reviewer, since I was pretty heavily involved in the last FAC, and I've written a fair share of the article. I'd only say that I'm still fairly satisfied that many of the content issues raised previously are an artifact of having a very broad topic, and not of an article being insufficiently comprehensive in the format of an encyclopedia, rather than a book. GMG^talk 15:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Noswall59

I commend the good work that has gone into this, but I'm concerned about comprehensiveness. The history section is patchy. The subsection on Europe includes relatively detailed discussions of the Nordic countries, the UK and the Soviet Union but nothing on the Germany, Benelux, Austria, Eastern Europe and the Balkans; there is also nothing on the Mediterranean states like Spain, Italy and Greece. The North American, Caribbean and Latin American material seem fine to me either because they cover everywhere (North America) or talk in general terms with some illustrative examples or exceptions. Oceania mentions nothing about the various Pacific island states and Asia focuses on China, Japan and India but nowhere else.

I recognise, of course, that we can't just have histories of every country in this article, but it seems odd to focus in depth on a few in one continent but make no mention of the rest or any general comments, as in the sections on Europe and Asia. There's also very little in this article on illiteracy specifically, but that has often been a major part of prison education programmes and there's a lot of scholarship on it. Again, we don't need to cover everything here; Illiteracy in prison populations could be its own article, as could Education programmes for illiterate prisoners (or something like that). But I think some mention other than just a couple of country-specific statistics is probably called for. I will say that I am very busy offline right now, so I don't think I will carry out a full review of this article; these are just meant to be points on comprehensiveness. All the best, —Noswall59 (talk) 08:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC).

@Noswall59: Thanks for your comments. The article recently had a lot of country specific information on literacy rates (see the first paragraph of the 'Literacy rates and available programs' section in this version here [4]), though I was actually asked to replace this with a single sentence saying prisoners were less literate in general in order to address the concerns of another reviewer. I agree with that reviewer that the current summary is much better.

I've always had the same overarching problem with the history section. While there is information available on the current state of prison education in many countries (though far from all of them), very few sources exist on the history of prison education. As I mentioned in the lead of this nomination, I could only find one book written about the history of prison education in Australia, and the author explicitly said his motivation for writing it was that nobody else had ever tried to cover the subject. If only one source exists on prison education in a developed and wealthy nation like Australia, it's easy to imagine why there won't be sources on the history of prison education on the much smaller developing Pacific island nations near it. Speaking from years of research in the field, smaller developing nations are unlikely to have prison education at all, let alone a history on the subject worth writing about. Of course, I don't think I'd have too much trouble finding more coverage for at least somewhere in Europe. I simply stopped writing that section once it reached a size that was already larger than most of the other continents. I was concerned about issues of due weight and focus on the Western world, conscious of the fact the article is already at such as large size, and it's a difficult subject to to summarise because as you note, I cannot add information on every country. But if I found some more coverage in Europe and Asia, would that address any resistance you had to the article being promoted? Damien Linnane (talk) 11:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Damien Linnane. Thanks for your response. Firstly, on due weight, I completely understand your concerns. My issue was that it seemed odd to have a few countries singled out in Europe especially; if you could find a source which offers a more general picture across Europe or part of Europe, or even just signpost the development in some other major countries, like Spain, Italy, Germany, then that would make a big difference to reducing the patchy feel. I wonder whether former Soviet Bloc countries had similar historical experiences of prison education - if so, that might make it easy to generalise there. It really doesn't need much, a few sentences really. As for illiteracy, you're absolutely right to have reduced the country-specific stats, but I more meant it's implications for pedagogy. In fact, I notice that there isn't a section about pedagogy (as in, theories and research on best-practices, e.g.), perhaps that's worth looking into? —Noswall59 (talk) 11:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC).

@Noswall59: I've expanded on the history of Italy, Spain and Russia. Let me know what you think so far, and if you think it still needs more. I'll try and find the time to look into pedagogy tomorrow. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 16:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Noswall59: I've added a paragraph on pedagogy to the beginning of the 'Challenges' section. Let me know if you have any ongoing concerns. Damien Linnane (talk) 14:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

That's definitely an improvement. I actually don't have a working knowledge of the topic, so it's difficult to judge whether there are particular approaches or theories which deserve a mention – there are a number of books on the topic. Nevertheless, it probably needs its own article, where such discussion ought to take place; perhaps a red link would is in order. If you feel confident that you've summarised the general contours of the literature, then that's probably enough. —Noswall59 (talk) 12:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments. I do feel like those were good improvements. Turns out pedagogy is mostly the same as outside prison, with the caveat of prison restrictions getting in the way, but that's still interesting to read about. Anyway thanks for your input. Damien Linnane (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Noswall59, are you content with the changes made? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild yes, with the caveat that I’m no expert. –Noswall59 (talk) 07:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC).

Coord query

@FAC coordinators: Image and source reviews pass, three supports, and two additional commentators who appear to not have any outstanding concerns. Are we good to go or do we need another review? Damien Linnane (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• References: What system are you using to render the titles of works in title case or not?

@Gog the Mild: Typically I just mirror whatever format the title of the reference itself uses, but to be honest I didn't really think about it much. I've never been asked that on Wikipedia before, even at FAC. Would you like me to pick a format and make everything consistent, regardless of what format the title of the actual source is? 12:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Cites 35 and 80 contain p/pp errors. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Really?! Does no one read criterion 2c "consistently formatted inline citations"? Yes please; if you could adjust them all to a consistent format that would be good. I would suggest putting them all into title case, but it is your call. (Grandma and eggs bit: In edit mode do a cntl-F search for "title=" and run through the 149 results.) Gog the Mild (talk) 13:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Done. Incidentally I always thought consistency just meant consistent template and date formatting, but I'll include case from now on as well. Damien Linnane (talk) 14:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I dunno what was in the mind of the drafter, but I think you see my point. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Ref 80 was literally the last reference I added to address the last reviewers concern, after the source check was done. Damien Linnane (talk) 12:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Cite 81 is malformed. Possibly you need to decide which single year it was published in. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Damien Linnane (talk) 14:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.