Talk:Howard Marks/GA1
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Cryptic C62 (talk · contribs) 18:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
The sourcing in this article is a big problem. The vast majority of the article uses an autobiography as the source. WP:Verifiability explicitly forbids sources with a conflict of interest and those that are self-published. I don't think it would be a problem to use the biography to fill in a few details here and there, or to provide some illustrative quotations, but the fact that the first three sections of the article rely entirely on it is inexcusable. Entire sections should never be built on a single source, let alone a single autobiography.
The rest of article is essentially just a collection of unrelated trivia from pop culture sources, many of which are unreliable. Here are some specific issues:
- What makes this a reliable source?
- Pilcher 2005 (currently ref 92) requires page numbers for verifiability.
- "On 1 October 2010, he was interviewed on Ireland's The Late Late Show." Ref 93 does not mention an interview taking place.
- MySpace is not a reliable source.
- This link no longer works.
The article needs to re-built from the ground up using reliable sources. The following may be useful, and it is somewhat disappointing that none of these were consulted in the first place:
- Leigh, David (1988). Howard Marks: His Life and High Times.
- Marks, Howard and Gibbard, Alun (2010). Two Dragons: Howard Marks' Wales.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - Morselli, C (April 2001). "Structuring Mr. Nice: Entrepreneurial opportunities and brokerage positioning in the cannabis trade". Crime, Law and Social Change. 35 (3).
- Walters, Rob. Rogue Males.
- Jones, Nick and Marks, Howard (2004). Spliffs: A Celebration of Cannabis Culture.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - Baggini, Julian (2011). "My Philosophy - Howard Marks". The Philosophers' Magazine (54).
At this point, it wouldn't even be worth the time to inspect the article's prose, as much of it will need to be rewritten or restructured as the sourcing issue is addressed. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)