Talk:Thomas S. Popkewitz

Maintenance tags
I reinstated the banners because all three issues remain. The article is written like an essay and contains little to no inline-referencing from independent (secondary), reliable sources. It is mostly original analysis of his written work, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. The direct references to his work should follow the self-published sources guidelines by way of summary and not original analysis. The article needs to be mostly rewritten to be from the perspective of secondary opinions of his work (the Green/Cormack src appears to be a start). As a biography of a living person, the whole article should be sourced (as a top priority). There needs to be at least one citation per paragraph, if not on the sentence level. His entire bio doesn't have a single source, so more citations are indeed needed for verification. If the primary author has an affiliation with the subject, it should be made known on the article's talk page per the COI guidelines. The current language is also choppy and obtuse (e.g., In their bestselling examination of the curriculum studies field, it is to Popkewitz’s work that Pinar, et.al. turn to when trying to define what the end of the curriculum development era means and what the new era ushers in. ...). Any WP:JARGON needs to be made transparent to readers and (ideally) wikilinked to the relevant concepts. Lastly, the article isn't written neutrally (see WP:NPOV) and though some of the laudatory language has been removed, the tone pervades the article. It would likely be resolved in addressing the aforementioned rewrite. czar ♔  21:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)