The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Main concern: My main concern is the amount of primary sources used in the article. Almost every source is either an interview, a book/article authored by the subject, or a tweet. This is not surprising since articles on academics typically rely on primary sources. However, Rediker's work has received lots of coverage in secondary sources. To make this article more objective, I would want the nominator to search for secondary, scholarly sources of Rediker's work (there are plenty) and incorporate them throughout the scholarship section and other places. In particular, there is a review by
David Brion Davis that criticized The Many-Headed Hydra
[1]. The subject subsequently responded and then Davis responded again
[2]. I think it would be a good idea for NPOV reasons to incorporate this source.
Other concerns:
"Informed by
Marxian economics, Rediker's works explore their respective subjects in systemic terms while emphasizing human
class-consciousness and agency.
Historical narratives that emphasize the plights of the poor and oppressed are known as a people's history or "history from below"." --Does not appear to be sourced
Peter Linebaugh is misspelled in the lead
" Abu-Jamal's death conviction was overruled in federal court in 2001, and he was sentenced to
life imprisonment without parole in 2011." --BLP material that appears unsourced
"Rediker's experiences with his co-workers fueled his passion for
social history." --This is not supported by the source
Terracentrism-- unless you find secondary sources, I don't think this is important enough
To be honest, I think it would take a lot of work to expand the article with scholarly, secondary sources. I prefer the nominator take their time rather than rush through it. However, I will put the article on the standard 7-day hold. If, however, the nominator feels that they would not be able to accomplish such a task in such a short time frame, then please just let me know! You can always re-nominate once the article is in better condition.
Dr. Swag Lord (
talk)
20:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I did not see this until now. These are valid criticisms, and I appreciate providing examples of secondary sources. I would definitely need more time to fix the article with the changes you've requested however, since searching for these sources can be time-consuming and I'm pretty much the only person working on the article. Will definitely work to improve the page as soon as I am able.
Hi, @
Pac-Man PHD. Based on what you’re telling me, I think it would be best for me to fail this article for the time being. That way you’ll have all the time you need to improve the article. Does that seem fair?
Dr. Swag Lord (
talk)
18:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I don’t believe there’s any policy against me reviewing this article again (maybe
Asilvering can correct me if I’m wrong). So just make sure you renominate it to GA and give me a ping (I’m planning on taking a wiki-break soon so there’s no guarantee I’ll be the first one to review it.)
Dr. Swag Lord (
talk)
18:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't think you're wrong! I think typically submitters want a different reviewer the second go around, but I don't think there's any guideline saying they must have a different reviewer. --
asilvering (
talk)
01:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.