Talk:Thomas Bailey Marquis/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: E.M.Gregory (talk · contribs) 23:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Interesting sounding man, but article is not yet ready for prime time. 1.) First problem is the lede, it's far too long - needs to be pared down. 2.) the first 2 paragraphs of the "Early Life" section are sourced to a chapter-length biography of Marquis published in a book written by Marquis. My question is how reliable this is as a source for facts about events long before marquis was born. I am guessing that the writer worked from family lore related to him by Marquis, if these are family stories, they should be identified as such. Or just leave out stuff that happened to subject's ancestors.

Overall, the bars to good article-dom are the fact that the article is verbose and offers overmuch detail for an encyclopedia; it might prove useful to break Keep the Last Bullet for Yourself out as a stand-alone article. And the overly promotional tone of some material, for example, in the Value to scholars section we read: "Marquis' body of work is of great value to scholars..." but the section fails to support this assertion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I've taken a good chunk of text (about 15%) out of the lead. It now stands at about 9% of the total article prose. In my opinion, a lead length of about 10% of the article is about right. Not sure what to do with your comment that the article has "overmuch detail". For that comment and any further reductions in the lead, you will need to be explicit on what you think should be removed.

I don't see why we shouldn't trust Weist. He was a professional author and journalist and should be trusted to assess primary sources. That is the whole point of WP:RS, we don't try and assess them ourselves. It is true that the biography apppears in one of Marquis' books, but this was 45 years after Marquis's death, Weist has no connection (as far as I know) to Marquis, and can reasonably be treated as independent of him and writing without COI. We certainly shouldn't be treating this in the same way as a publishers blurb. Dippie says that Weist "remains the standard source for Marquis", an independent indication that Weist is treated as reliable. The bottom line is that if we are not to treat Weist as reliable and use him as a source, there will not be much of an article left.

"great value to scholars". I have removed the word great which I suspect is the stumbling block here. I cannot understand why you have said I have provided no evidence. I have provided several quotations from scholars indicating just that, and the article explains exactly why Marquis' work is unique. A further indication is the great frequency with which he is cited as a primary source in books about the period in question. SpinningSpark 11:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I meant to address your comment about Keep the Last Bullet for Yourself but forgot earlier. Yes, it is possible this could be a standalone article, but it is still a central part of Marquis' story and would still need to be covered in detail here. I can't see that that would significantly reduce the size of the article. SpinningSpark 21:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• I suggested separating the material on Keep the Last Bullet for Yourself as a way of reducing the bulk of the article. I even created a brief article on the school he attended (Weaubleau Christian College), because links ot such articles are a good path to concision. Overall, I still find it encyclopedic on the grounds that it verbose and provided overmuch detail. A good article should provide authoritative information more briefly; and, in this case, I believe, they are a bar to good article status. That, and difficulty of asessing the degree of esteem in which his work is held. I do not find that seciton persuasive, but, then, neither am I expert on the historiography of this period in American/Amerindian relations. Perhaps it it best to let another, more experienced editor evaluate this article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Giving this article another careful reading. Lede does not conform to WP:LEAD; it is neither neutral nor concise. The article overall fails WP:WIAGA, in particular 3a, in failing to stay focused and providing unnecessary detail. In addition, I spent a little time looking at the historiography of this topic, and I have significant misgivings that the article fails ot maintain a WP:NPOV. Although I am not not expert on the work of Thomas Bailey Marquis per se, I do have sufficient expertise in reviewing academic journal articles to feel confident in stating that this article does not at present offer a balanced representation of Marquis'work.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• ? "Stands in Timber, with Margot Liberty, published Cheyenne Memories shortly before he died in 1967." in sign language section. The meaning of this sentence is unclear.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Can you elaborate what needs clarifying? It means that Stands in Timber published the book Cheyenne Memories with help from Liberty as coauthor. SpinningSpark 16:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Rearranged slightly , for clarity.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• this sentence needs sourcing: "However, Marquis has many other critics who say he either exaggerated the role played by suicide or is entirely mistaken."E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Not really, it is just a summary of what follows. Hardorff is cited pretty much saying the same thing in the following para.

• User:Spinningspark. If you can fix these two small details (above), I think it's good for GA status.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
• Article now GA approved.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)