Talk:Marcus Rediker/GA1

GA Review

Unsuccessful. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Dr. Swag Lord: Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk · contribs) Hi, I’ll review this article a bit later.05:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, I'm eager to hear what you think. Pac-Man PHD (talk) 16:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

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.

Thank you so much. Pac-Man PHD (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d Yeah, I think that would put some of the edge off. When I do eventually finish and resubmit it for review, do I need to contact you or does it have to be a different reviewer? Pac-Man PHD (talk) 18:14, 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]

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d Understood. Thank you for taking the time to review this article, I'm truly grateful. Pac-Man PHD (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s been my pleasure! Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 18:57, 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.