Talk:Douglas W. Owsley/GA3

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: PocklingtonDan (talk · contribs) 16:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
The article seems well copy-edited generally, in terms of spelling and grammar.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Layout is fine. Lists is fine. Lead is fine. There are several "words to watch" concerns, where you editorialze (I suspect due to heavy reliance for source material on a heavily editorialized bibliography (Benedict), there seems quite a lot of puffery (example: " one of the most prominent and influential archaeologists and forensic anthropologists in the world"), clciches and idioms (example: "kicked in") and an attempt to make a narrative rather than state facts plainly "At one point while Bass was speaking", and also trying to paint actions as heroic or overcoming odds: "Owsley had attended several conferences before, he had never spoken or presented professionally. He was also considerably introverted, with little experience speaking in front of a large group. At the conference, he spoke in front of over 200 people, using visual slides to present his findings", "Fully understanding the ramifications of the situation, Owsley and his wife chose to face the problem, while refusing to accept defeat".
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:
Has a good footnote section, with well referenced citations. There is a bit of an over-reliance on single sources for certain sections of the article (particularly on Benedict) but overall a pass.

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
There is a mix of both published print material and online texts. The online texts are largely reputable and verifiable. However, I am going to have to check on whether it is acceptable to link to sources that cannot be verified without signing up for services/hidden behind a payment gateway but I will not fail the review on this for now. However, at the moment this is a fail for me on coverage of references. I'm not so bothered about references for anything ordinary but extra-ordinary claims deserve citations. For example "He is one of the most prominent and influential archaeologists and forensic anthropologists in the world." is a bold claim and is correctly cited. However, any of the following are bold or controversial claims that need citations and lack them currently - without citations they could be perceived as deliberately introduced innacurcies or slander (not sufficient to generally cite the entire paragraph): " Owsley eventually stopped believing in God and life after death", "On July 22, 1991, Jeffrey Dahmer was arrested for the abduction and assault of a man in Milwaukee, Wisconsin", "Owsley participated in the introduction of "Jane", the reconstructed remains of a 14–year–old resident of the colony whose skeleton bore signs of her having been eaten by other humans", "Owsley earned the highest scores in his class", "this was the first combat submarine to sink an enemy warship". These are just a few examples, there are many more. I'm not saying that I don't believe them, just that they are extraordinary enough to need specific citations for those claims alone.

C. No original research:
The article is predominantly biographical and stays away from analysis or synthesis that might be deemed original research.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
The article is well laid out. There is a good lead section, and the sections are sensible and well laid out. One caveat - that I will not fail you on - it seems absurd to give "Television appearances" more prominence than "Published books" for a prominent archaeologist. Please consider swapping the ordering.

B. Focused:
The article is far too long and unfocused in parts. This seems to be down to two main issues: 1) Far too much non-notable information from his personal and educational life that are essentially anecdotes. The first 3 paras in "Personal background" are OK, as are the last two, but the middle two paragraphs are not notable in the level of detail given, and seem to have been taken wholesale from a biography to add "flavour"/depth. I do not feel they are appropriate in their current form and language, or that they are needed in an encyclopedia article. 2) In the "Prominent excavactions" section, for each incident, link to the main article and one-sentence summary would be sufficient. However, for the Waco siege for instance you have two paragraphs of introduction. You also go into far more detail than is needed on the outcome of various of the excavations, which more appropriately lie in the main article for that excavation. Information in this article shuold be limited to notable involvements of Owsley only. The "H. L. Hunsley" excavation section is rife with content belonging in the main article for its excavation, but acting as unrelated padding in this article.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
The article is not encyclopedic, it reads more like an engrossing biography. You may think this is not an issue, but specific quotes from guidance on writing bibliographies on wikipedia include "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist", "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone", whereas sometimes it seems as though you are trying to present a ripping yarn, or a rag to riches narrative etc rather than explicitly state facts. A few examples for you currently of language you use that is charged, emotive, insufficiently dispassionate, or using innapropriate tabloidy similes and metaphors: "Fascinated, they raced home", "he developed a crush.", "chose to face the problem, while refusing to accept defeat", "medical knowledge kicked in", "a medical diagnosis that essentially served as a death sentence", "mildew conditioned Owsley's lungs, making them into a virtual petri dish of infection"/ It needs to be more encyclopedic, less charged.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
History checked, few edits, no edit wars in evidence
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
No issues found with image copyright status

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Images appear to be appropriate, and appropriately labelled.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
This article is not up to GA standard yet and needs rework on the above grounds, most seriously in my opinion for sections 1a, 3b, and 4 above.