This article has the same problem as the one on Gay's book, it only mentions an unfavorable reviewer.--RJR3333 (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason why I used Eysenck's book as a source is that it helps to show that Jones' biography is notable under WP:NOTE. I personally couldn't care less whether it reflects the book favorably or unfavorably. Feel free to add other sources that take a different view (which would help the article greatly), but please don't remove Eysenck (which wouldn't be helpful at all). Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
