Talk:Thomas Higham (archaeologist)

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted from this draft on 25 February 2018 by reviewer Joe Roe (talk · contribs).

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Archaeology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Arch&anth66 (talk · contribs)

Notability

Seven of the ten sources are written by Thomas Higham himself. We need independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 12:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Higham passes WP:PROF by a mile, with a h-index of 205 and 50+ papers with more than 100 citations.

I'm concerned by some of your recent removals. Not everything needs to be cited to an independent and/or secondary source. What on earth is wrong with citing his PhD thesis as evidence he did a PhD, for example [1]? – Joe (talk) 13:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK I bow to your superior knowledge as an admin, it was my understanding that we needed independent sourcing, I have NEVER come across an article with so many primary sources and so few reliable secondary ones. I don't doubt that he is notable but the sourcing is appalling and there is a conflict of interest. I would not have accepted the article in this state. Theroadislong (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Independent sourcing needs to exist, it doesn't have to be cited in the article. Also note that whilst the references in this article aren't independent of the subject, they are peer-reviewed academic papers and so definitely reliable. All in all I would say this is a typical Start-class academic biography.– Joe (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]