Talk:David Ivon Jones/GA1

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.

---

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

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.