Wikipedia

Talk:G. E. L. Owen/GA1

< Talk:G. E. L. Owen
Latest comment: 3 years ago by StraussInTheHouse in topic GA Review

GA Review edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: StraussInTheHouse (talk · contribs) 11:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Criteria edit

Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review edit

  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) 12:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC): prose is well-constructed. Perhaps consider re-wording the fourth paragraph of the lead so two consecutive paragraphs do not start in the same fashion.   Pass
    (b) (MoS) 12:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC): all in order re MOS:ORDER and MOS:BODY. One small change re MOS:HEAD is recommended: rename third section to "Works" or "Publications" as technically his "Career" (second section) also constituted "Work".   Pass
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) 12:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC): no WP:WHENINROME concerns.   Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) 12:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC): reliability of all sources related to academia is of no concern, however, see fourth section of review for a somewhat related concern.   Pass
    (c) (original research) 12:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC): WP:NOR is fully complied with as are sub-parts, e.g. there is not inappropriate synthesis.   Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) 11:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC): Earwig's tool shows 0.0%.   Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) 12:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC): covers all which is to be expected for an academic.   Pass
    (b) (focused) 12:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC): likewise, as with most biographies which aren't spun out into several forks, nothing irrelevant is included.   Pass
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    12:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC): the sixth section, due to its nature, raises WP:UNDUE concerns, given the sourcing. All of the allegations are referenced to Nussbaum (2003) and no indication of the reception of her claims by the academic community or their impact on Owen's reputation is given. By adding more one risks making the section comparatively larger, which would ironically exacerbate WP:UNDUE concerns, perhaps a sentence or two on the claims' reception and impact would be fine. The major issue is with the plural "Allegations" - the cited source indicates that only one person has made and repeated an allegation, if there are others covered in reliable sources, by all means, add them.   Pass
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Notes Result
    11:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC): no edits in a few days, no edit warring or content disputes.   Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) 11:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC): previous version of infobox image is scheduled for deletion due to lack of use however the current version is correctly tagged and, on balance, the fair use doctrine seems applicable.   Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) 11:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC): clear, concise, readable caption providing a date, rough source and subject.   Pass

Result edit

Result Notes
  Pass 12:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC): all in all, it's nearly there. The snags in 1a and 1b can be easily ironed out and with a bit of further research and careful modification the issue raised in 4 can be allayed. Likely promotion once these are addressed.

Discussion edit

  • Hi Modussiccandi, review completed. Please ping me back when the "on hold" items have been looked at and I'll re-review. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
@StraussInTheHouse: Thank you very much for the speedy review. I have addressed the points raised in section 1. I have singularised the "Allegations" and done some more research on the issue. It seems that nobody has commented on Nussbaum's statement, perhaps because Owen had already been dead for so long. Still, I've added a reference by The New Yorker which simply restates the allegations. They admittedly use some quotes form Nussbaum (2003) and seem to have talked only to Nussbaum about the issue, but I thought it might be helpful to add a second reliable source. Let me know if anything more is needed to improve the article. Modussiccandi (talk) 15:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
Hi Modussiccandi, no problem, thank you for the prompt response and changes. The article is has been promoted to good article status. Congratulations! SITH (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:G._E._L._Owen/GA1&oldid=1027025773"