Talk:Claude Marcel

This page was proposed for deletion by Gjgb (talk · contribs) on 13 August 2012 with the comment:
I created this page about my ancestor and do not wish it to be available any more until further research is completed
It was contested by RW Dutton (talk · contribs) on 2022-5-24 with the comment:
(see WP:Requests for undeletion#Claude Marcel)

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Ireland Low‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An image is requested for this article as its inclusion will substantially increase the significance of the article. Please remove the `image-needed` parameter once the image is added.

Education Low‑importance

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Is Roberts' Two French Language Teaching Reformers Reassessed a reliable source?

I've decided to treat John T. Roberts' Two French Language Teaching Reformers Reassessed - Claude Marcel and Francois Gouin as a WP:RS and include it in the Further reading section for the page. The major reason not to do this is that it's from Edwin Mellen Press, a controversial self-publishing press (and one which is flagged on WP as such). Against this:

A previous version had already appeared as a working paper from the University of Essex in the Essex Research Reports in Linguistics series
If the claims in his Edwin Mellen biography are accurate, Roberts had a relevant academic position (but maybe just a teaching position) at Essex at the time Edwin Mellen published Two French Language Teaching Reformers Reassessed, and he had a record of relevant qualifications and jobs from mainstream, recognised institutions (though AFAICT no doctorate). I haven't checked all the details, but he was able to publish Two French Language Teaching Reformers Reassessed as a U. Essex paper and his paper "The Communicative Approach to Language Teaching: The King is dead! Long live the King!" in the International Journal of English Studies gives U. Essex contact details, so it seems reasonable to assume that the bio is correct
Roberts has or had published other pieces on the field in mainstream venues. For example, the International Journal of English Studies which published the "Long Live the King!" paper seems to have an ok reputation, while the paper itself seems to have quite a few citations, which AFAICT don't seem abusive
The Edwin Mellon version of Two French Language Teaching Reformers Reassessed itself has (at least) a couple of citations of some quality: the Richard C. Smith paper "Claude Marcel (1793–1876): A Neglected Applied Linguist?" and a Brigham Young University lecture, "On the mortality of language learning methods", delivered by Wilfried Decoo
The book's WorldCat entry shows that a number of big-name academic libraries hold it, including the British Library, the Cambridge University Library and the BnF. That does seems to be fairly typical for Edwin Mellen books, though

So on balance I think the book meets the minimum standard to be considered a RS here. If this view is rejected or heavily disputed I'll probably substitute a reference to the Essex Research Reports in Linguistics version instead.

I have no connection to John T. Roberts or to Edwin Mellen Press. RW Dutton (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]