Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Mother Solomon/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mother Solomon

[edit]
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to bring it to FA status. One point of interest is Marsh 1984, and opinions on whether she is given due weight are appreciated. Inviting Dudley Miles.

Thanks, Averageuntitleduser (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Dudley

[edit]
  • Standards are higher at FAC than GAN and Marsh would not pass it. See WP:SPS. The first two sources in your bibliography look OK. The last one, Marvin, is marginal. As part of the FAC process there is a source review, and Marvin may not pass it. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:29, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dudley Miles: I've thought some more, and will lay out my opininions here. I believe that Marsh is too much of a subject-matter expert to ignore her, even for FAC. Labelle's book is a big indicator to me. Labelle cites Marsh 25 times and commends the sourcing and detail in Daughter of Grey Eyes on page 53. In this article from the Telegraph-Forum, Parker B. Brown, who wrote extensively on the Crawford expedition, commends Marsh's books for accuracy and states that she guided him and other local historians. One PhD thesis cites her 20 times and presents one of her earlier books as a useful primary source, though not fully methodical. And another PhD thesis critiques the strong pro-Christian bias in her first two books, but still states that she "conducted a great deal of primary and secondary research during her writing". Marsh's books are not rigorous, and this one in particular is not academic, but I believe it is reliable at a baseline. From there, the circumstances make me believe it is worth keeping for FAC: this is a full-length biography of an obscure person, and I worry that removing Marsh would be straying far from comprehensiveness. There's one more thing to add. Marsh's book is summarized in these two articles from the Telegraph-Forum, the regional newspaper of Bucyrus, Ohio. Their author, Jim Croneis, published the newspaper for 19 years. Not the pinnacle of reliability, but it helps the issue of self-publishing, and I wonder if it could be an alternative.
    My opinion has been heavily influenced of course. I sought out Marsh's book for a long time and wrote the article. You also have much more of a grasp on FAC sourcing. So ultimately, I want to be flexible. And if you think this is non-negotiable, I will remove Marsh from the article. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot see Marsh passing a source review at FAC. I am not sure about Marvin. It is published by the History Press, which publishes some reliable books, and the author is associated with the Wyandot County Archaeological and Historical Society. Jo-Jo Eumerus you do a lot of source reviews. Can you advise? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So, self-published books can sometimes be reliable sources for both general Wikipedia and specific FA purposes. What you'd need to establish is that Marsh is a subject matter expert on the field she is being cited for. I think PhD theses and regional newspapers might be a somewhat thin basis, especially given the "whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" in WP:SELFPUB. I think we are running into the minor issue of how to handle sources that don't qualify as RS but are nevertheless often cited by a reliable source. My sense is that this would probably not pass muster. WRT Marvin, I figure the question is whether such imprints on "local" things and more off-the-beaten-path subjects like hauntings are good publishers? I think you should probably see if you can find a better source, and failing that, keep only stuff that is totally unexceptional. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:11, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you both for your judgement. I will remove Marsh. It's hard to see her go, but it is of course in pursuit of the best article. But before I begin on that, I realized that the first PhD thesis I mentioned, and and another more recent one, together have a fair amount of material about Solomon. There's some general biographical information, and specific discussion of her uncle’s teachings, her schooling, her farming in Kansas, and the death of her relatives. Both theses were supervised by Labelle, but I know they could be questioned at FAC. Would they be of any use? And does this change the picture in regard to Marvin? Averageuntitleduser (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot say whether a PhD thesis would be accepted. Personally, I regard them as OK as they are peer-reviewed, but some editors are more sceptical. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dudley Miles: Marsh is gone (as well as one citation to a Croneis article based on her book). Please confirm if you want me to remove cite 50, too. I would be happy to do so. Thanks again for your advice and patience, I really do appreciate it.
    My philosophy while editing the article was to resort to Labelle wherever possible, and otherwise cite Marvin and the theses sparingly. There are still three citations to Marvin that are covered by another reference, so his use could be further cut down if necessary. I note that I still recognize that these sources could be contested in an FAC, and would be willing to follow consensus if it is against them. With that in mind, do you believe the peer review can proceed? Averageuntitleduser (talk) 15:45, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dudley Miles: Do you have any more comments? No worries if not. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 03:27, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Mother_Solomon/archive1&oldid=1283824966"