This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics 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.
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)