The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
There are so many things wrong with this article it is hard to know where to start.
The entire article consists of copy and pasted from this source. Appears to be properly licensed so cannot simply be deleted as a copyright violation.
We do have some articles that are almost entirely a copy of a source in the public domain, notably copies of articles from An earlier version of Encyclopaedia Britannica. However, by definition those were articles created to be standalone coverage of some subject. This is not such an example. While some of the material in this article may be a useful source for a general article, merely copying a few paragraphs from the middle of an article is really going to create a standalone article.
We expect a decent article to start with a well-defined subject. This one does not. The purported subject is globalization and education, but the first sentence suggests that the subject matter is the relationship between these two. However it doesn't contain a proper definition of the subject.
The tone of the article is intensely political. While that we should not negate the value of this document as a contribution to a neutral discussion, by using the text from this source and no other source, the reader is not presented with a balance neutral discussion of issues. While one might argue that this could be a starting point for an article, it should be developed off-line and much more extensively before even being considered as an article.
The tone is all wrong. Statements such as "The changes taking place have implications for education and signal the emergence of a new global context for learning." are political conclusions, which have a place in an intergovernmental advocacy document, but have no place in an encyclopedia.
As an aside, please note that the issues are broader than this single article. The sole editor of this article has been copying and pasting other sections of this report into a number of other articles. In some cases, that might be fully appropriate, as an added relevant piece of information in the context of the larger discussion but I think all of these addition should be scrutinized closely.
S Philbrick
(Talk) 14:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
There are so many things wrong with this article it is hard to know where to start.
The entire article consists of copy and pasted from this source. Appears to be properly licensed so cannot simply be deleted as a copyright violation.
We do have some articles that are almost entirely a copy of a source in the public domain, notably copies of articles from An earlier version of Encyclopaedia Britannica. However, by definition those were articles created to be standalone coverage of some subject. This is not such an example. While some of the material in this article may be a useful source for a general article, merely copying a few paragraphs from the middle of an article is really going to create a standalone article.
We expect a decent article to start with a well-defined subject. This one does not. The purported subject is globalization and education, but the first sentence suggests that the subject matter is the relationship between these two. However it doesn't contain a proper definition of the subject.
The tone of the article is intensely political. While that we should not negate the value of this document as a contribution to a neutral discussion, by using the text from this source and no other source, the reader is not presented with a balance neutral discussion of issues. While one might argue that this could be a starting point for an article, it should be developed off-line and much more extensively before even being considered as an article.
The tone is all wrong. Statements such as "The changes taking place have implications for education and signal the emergence of a new global context for learning." are political conclusions, which have a place in an intergovernmental advocacy document, but have no place in an encyclopedia.
As an aside, please note that the issues are broader than this single article. The sole editor of this article has been copying and pasting other sections of this report into a number of other articles. In some cases, that might be fully appropriate, as an added relevant piece of information in the context of the larger discussion but I think all of these addition should be scrutinized closely.
S Philbrick
(Talk) 14:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)