Talk:Jock R. Anderson

Heavy reliance on primary sources
This article seems to rely almost entirely on an announcement of a fellowship, a few speaker/employee bios, and Anderson's own work. Do any independent secondary sources exist on Anderson beyond the Marquis Who's Who (which is bit questionable for determining notability)? If not, what's his claim to notability? -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * His two books on risk and decision theory in agricultural economics appear to be recognized as the most influential in the field. I included mention of this in the article. Cla68 (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It appears to me that four out of the eight references are secondary sources. So, I'm not sure if the "primary sources" tag is necessary. Cla68 (talk) 10:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; you're welcome to remove it. (Sorry for the slow response, incidentally; I could have sworn I'd watchlisted this, but apparently I hadn't.) What concerns me was the proportion to which the primary sources are used here compared to secondary sources, especially given that the secondary sources are a bit borderline--a who's who, various announcements and bios, etc. The Ryan seems better but is only used once as part of a citation.
 * Is it possible to find any reviews or comment specifically about Anderson's work that can be quoted in the article? The conference paper calling one of his co-written works, along with one by another author, examples of an important theory in Australia is a good start, but as a reader I'm not entirely persuaded that citation in 4-5 papers = "most influential in the field", which seems to be the argument being advanced here. (For comparison, my own academic papers have been quoted in passing in about a dozen books, articles, and conference papers that I know of, but I absolutely do not deserve a Wikipedia article for my trivial work.) It also sets off faint alarms for me when I see an academic described as widely influential, but who appears to never have much directly written about his work, positive or negative. Generally if work is influential, it means that other authors are discussing it, reviewing it, applying it, and critiquing it at length, which this article doesn't really cover yet. Getting secondary-source commentary would be a big help here.
 * I'm not saying that any of the article's claims about Anderson's influence are untrue; obviously he had a prestigious career. But it would be good to bring in some discussions of his work beyond the university promotional material variety.
 * In any case, though, I've said my piece on this one and will now happily bow out, so feel free to ignore any and all of what I've said above. Thanks for your work on this one. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Jock R. Anderson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120408022035/https://www.assa.edu.au/fellows/profile.php?id=14 to http://www.assa.edu.au/fellows/profile.php?id=14

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)