Talk:David Ivon Jones

Template documentation

@BulgeUwU: Regarding this edit: the criterion isn't whether the cause of death had personal significance to the subject, it's whether it's significant to their notability, and there's no evidence of that here. As noted in the article this was a quite common ailment at the time. Regarding the grandfather, if you believe he is independently notable, suggest writing an article about him to be linked. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Alright that makes sense for his cause of death. But according to all the articles who mention him, David's grandfather was a highly influential political and religious activist in Aberystwyth. I would love to make an article about him but I've been nursing the David Ivon Jones page for a few days now and I need a break. Surely the research I cited that states him to have been a notable figure should be enough without having to create an entirely new wiki page? BulgeUwU (talk) 01:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the research that you have so it's difficult for me to assess, but being called "notable" in the real world doesn't automatically mean that the person meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Do you believe that he does? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not well versed in religious history but the experts in the book and research article I cited both say that he had a considerable impact on the religious and political life of Aberystwyth. I looked into it more closely and I believe I found that he already has a wiki page, just under a slightly differently arranged name - John Jones (Ivon) - a quick google search shows most historians call him John Jones and don't use his middle name, but I'm fairly confident he fits into wiki's notability guidelines. BulgeUwU (talk) 01:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

My bad, the sources I cited don't say he (the grandfather) is notable, but looking into his background shows he was the secretary of the National Eisteddfod, winner of an award, published author, considerable media coverage. Yeah he's notable enough for wiki. I'll add some better quality citations and a sentence about his notability to tomorrow. BulgeUwU (talk) 02:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:David Ivon Jones/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 14:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll get a review for this posted within the next few days. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

The History Wizard of Cambridge, I started by looking at the sources, and there are some questions about reliability that need to be addressed before I start reviewing the text. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

The History Wizard of Cambridge It's been three days since the last discussion here, checking in to see where we're at. The article still makes significant use of Stevenson and Red Lives, neither of which appear to be reliable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I was waiting for the feedback from the reliable sources noticeboard but I'll start slimming down the number of uses of Red Lives tomorrow. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 04:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

 Reviewing...

Well-written

Verifiable with no original research

Broad in its coverage

Some possible issues regarding the reliability and independence of these sources:

• Visser (2002) – Where was this published? Is this peer reviewed?

I've added the journal it was published in. I'm unsure about peer review but it has been available on the website of Stellenbosch University's history department for many years. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• Stevenson (2011) – This appears to be a self-published source from a historian by avocation. It's probably not a reliable source.

I'm deeply familiar with Stevenson's work, I wrote his wiki page Graham Stevenson (historian) and I've found his Encyclopedia of Communist Biographies extremely valuable in building the skeleton of Wikipedia biographies for activists. A partisan source obviously, but with a lifetime of writing and trade union leadership and historical writing to back him up. I haven't used his sources for anything that isn't either backed up by another source or could be considered overly contentious. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I've requested additional opinions on this at the reliable sources noticeboard. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• Hirson (1991) – This appears to be an opinion piece.

I've deleted a few uses of this citation and I've move a quote from the research from the lead and down into the "Death and Legacy" section. Even so, it is still an article written by a historian and hosted by a university. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• Medick, Payne & Kats (2020) – This is a partisan work that does not appear to have been written by historians or published by a reputable publishing house. It's probably not a reliable source.

This will take me a while to deal with since I have used this source so frequently, but generally the information within this book seems to gel with most of the available literature I've read. Regardless I'll slowly replace the citations with more academic sources. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• Searchlight South Africa (1988) – This is a partisan source that should only be used for basic facts or attributed opinion of the author.

I do not see an issue with this source. A brief look at the background of the authors of this issue show some very accomplished historians and journalists. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not challenging its reliability as a whole, but this journal has a stated advocacy position, so there are additional considerations when using it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• Six Valk Avenue Guest House (2019) – This appears to be a promotional blog.

Agreed. I've deleted the citation for this blog. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• People's World (2020) – This is a partisan source that should only be used for basic facts or attributed opinion of the author.

Moved to legacy section and attributed the author in the text. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• Geograph.org.uk – Is this user-generated content?

Not certain but deleted just to be safe. I used this citation to help readers find the location of the chapel. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• Politicseb.co.za – This appears to be an opinion piece.

Removed. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

Stable

No recent disputes.

Illustrated

Images are public domain and Creative Commons. Captions are sufficient.

I am recusing myself from this review following my decision to open an ANI discussion. I will be setting it to second opinion so that it can be found by other editors. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

That's a shame but thankyou for the time you have already given. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 23:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Closing this review per the ANI discussion linked above. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

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.