This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Some of the fact elements in the article are evaluations of Allen's work relative to other literature. The current problem is that the statements are "sourced from only one side of that equation" i.e. the statements point the reader to the material, which is helpful, but evaluate it in a way that can potentially be assessed as original judgment rather than sourced judgment. So I think further refining is going to be beneficial, including further content based on
Look for other sources too. Only so much can be done at a time though. FeatherPluma (talk) 03:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)