Talk:Marcus Rediker

Marcus Rediker was nominated as a History good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (July 12, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Marcus Rediker (final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 9 January 2024 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal 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
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance).

United States: Kentucky

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Kentucky portal This article is supported by WikiProject Kentucky (assessed as Low-importance).

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Human rights

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Pittsburgh

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pittsburgh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pittsburgh and its metropolitan area 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.PittsburghWikipedia:WikiProject PittsburghTemplate:WikiProject PittsburghPittsburgh articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

University of Pittsburgh

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Pittsburgh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Pittsburgh 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.University of PittsburghWikipedia:WikiProject University of PittsburghTemplate:WikiProject University of PittsburghUniversity of Pittsburgh articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Marcus Rediker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Content assessment

After the request, I am reassessing the article as B-class. I believe that it meets all of the criteria. Thriftycat ^{Talk • Contribs} 21:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

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.