Talk:Royal Albert Dock, Liverpool/GA1

GA Review

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

Starting review.Pyrotec (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Initial comments

This is a well-written and comprehensive history of the Albert Dock. My only concern is that the majority of the in-line citations are based upon the use of a self-published book Amazon listing, by Jones (2004). However, the article, and also the British Library, list the publisher as Ron Jones Associates.

Unfortunately, WP:verify states that self-published sources are not generally acceptable. I don't yet have access to a copy of this book. So the main question, and I don't know the answer, is who is Jones, and what qualifies him to write on this topic? At this point, I need to put the article On Hold until this is resolved. Perhaps the WP:GAN Nominator can shed some light on the matter? Pyrotec (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, as it was me who added the information from the Ron Jones book I'll try and explain why I saw this source as viable. Although I'm not definately sure what position Ron Jones actually holds, I know he has written and published books on other Liverpool related subjects such as the Beatles, which makes me think that he is a local author. It is this that may also explain why he publishes his own books rather than going through someone like The Bluecoat Press.

Regarding the issue of verifiability there is an acknowledgement on the copyright page of the book to a Dr Adrian Jarvis, who is the curator of port history at National Museums Liverpool (A quick google search seems to suggest that Mr Jarvis is also affiliated with the University of Liverpool [1]). It states that he made sure the factual content of the book was correct and also names a book he has written on the Albert Dock called Albert Dock: Trade and Technology. Personally I felt that this acknowledgement to someone who can be considered an authority on Liverpool's maritime history made this source reliable, despite the self publication issue. --Daviessimo (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A comprehensive, wide-ranging article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Yes, BUT see comments below.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well-illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

This article is certainly GA-class, despite my concerns expressed above about the extensive use of a self-published book. I think in due course it might make WP:FAC, but not without additional sources of references. I am therefore awarding GA-status. Congratulations on the quality of the article.Pyrotec (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)