Talk:Claude Marcel

Is Roberts' Two French Language Teaching Reformers Reassessed a reliable source?
I've decided to treat John T. Roberts' Two French Language Teaching Reformers Reassessed - Claude Marcel and Francois Gouin as a WP:RS and include it in the Further reading section for the page. The major reason not to do this is that it's from Edwin Mellen Press, a controversial self-publishing press (and one which is flagged on WP as such). Against this:


 * A previous version had already appeared as a working paper from the University of Essex in the Essex Research Reports in Linguistics series
 * If the claims in his Edwin Mellen biography are accurate, Roberts had a relevant academic position (but maybe just a teaching position) at Essex at the time Edwin Mellen published Two French Language Teaching Reformers Reassessed, and he had a record of relevant qualifications and jobs from mainstream, recognised institutions (though AFAICT no doctorate). I haven't checked all the details, but he was able to publish Two French Language Teaching Reformers Reassessed as a U. Essex paper and his paper "The Communicative Approach to Language Teaching: The King is dead! Long live the King!" in the International Journal of English Studies gives U. Essex contact details, so it seems reasonable to assume that the bio is correct
 * Roberts has or had published other pieces on the field in mainstream venues. For example, the International Journal of English Studies which published the "Long Live the King!" paper seems to have an ok reputation, while the paper itself seems to have quite a few citations, which AFAICT don't seem abusive
 * The Edwin Mellon version of Two French Language Teaching Reformers Reassessed itself has (at least) a couple of citations of some quality: the Richard C. Smith paper "Claude Marcel (1793–1876): A Neglected Applied Linguist?" and a Brigham Young University lecture, "On the mortality of language learning methods", delivered by Wilfried Decoo
 * The book's WorldCat entry shows that a number of big-name academic libraries hold it, including the British Library, the Cambridge University Library and the BnF. That does seems to be fairly typical for Edwin Mellen books, though

So on balance I think the book meets the minimum standard to be considered a RS here. If this view is rejected or heavily disputed I'll probably substitute a reference to the Essex Research Reports in Linguistics version instead.

I have no connection to John T. Roberts or to Edwin Mellen Press. RW Dutton (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)