Talk:Douglas W. Owsley/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) 18:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

A very interesting article, but unfortunately one that does not meet the GA criteria at this time. I encourage you to work to address the below concerns.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Some copy-editing needed (ex "Believing that his credentials would not be enough to interest the recruiters, and chose to forgo applying for the position."), some instances of words to avoid. There appear to be multiple instances of very close paraphrasing. For example, "which consistently put him at the top of his class" is verbatim from the source cited.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Some use of bare URLs as citations - see WP:LINKROT for why this is a bad idea. Some uncited material, for example the section about the Guatemala trip. There are also some inaccuracies in citations - for example, FN 63 gives a page range of 265-267, but the material cited begins on page 264. There's also some original research - for example, the article says "His analysis served to provide personal identification and establish the cause of death for 60 of the 184 victims recovered", but the source says only that he worked on 60 victims, so we don't know whether he was consulting and someone else identified, whether all 60 were identified, etc.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Very little information provided about the subject's non-professional life
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Seems to be generally favorably inclined towards Owsley
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * No issues noted
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * AGF as I don't have OTRS access
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments
I am more than willing to work with any GA reviewers. The issues pointed out could be easily addressed through discussion and constructive dialogue I wish you would have contacted me rather than simply failing the article without my input. If you see areas that need copyediting, could you point them out so that they can be addressed? I sincerely thank you for your time. I would appreciate any additional feedback you are able to provide. Best regards,  Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 01:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Can you point out any unattributed "words to avoid" that should be revised? Can you be more specific about your concerns? I'm a professional business, technical, and nonfiction writer, so I tend to speak in a more formal tone. I'm more than willing to address any wonky content or tone down the formal prose. I would appreciate some specifics. Thanks.
 * 2) There's also some original research - for example, the article says "His analysis served to provide personal identification and establish the cause of death for 60 of the 184 victims recovered", but the source says only that he worked on 60 victims, so we don't know whether he was consulting and someone else identified, whether all 60 were identified, etc. This was not original research, but sourced with an appropriate inline citation. The actual source (p 266) states that he worked 12-hour shifts sorting and identifying the dead. Of the 189 casualties, he worked on 60 of them." Sorting and identifying the dead is a primary function of forensic analysis. For clarification, I have added the word "forensic" to the sentence. That said, the entire sentence explains his work in great detail, without going into to the gory stuff.
 * 3) I thought I provided quite a bit of detail about the subject's individual life. The previous reviewer stated that it was unnecessary, so I'm a bit confused. Can you share a bit about what you would like to see? I have access to more material and could flesh out further details. For example, I could add a bit about his marriage. Would that suffice?
 * 4) Since I nominated the article, I found a bit that could add balance regarding the successful lawsuit against the Army Corps of Engineers, but other than that, there's really nothing negative about this subject available. I'll work on this before nominating again.
 * Hi Cindamuse. I was previously more inclined towards holds rather than outright fails, but as recent commentary at WT:GAN has expressed displeasure at long holds (and I ran into such a problem with one of my most recent reviews, which ended up failing after a lengthy hold), and as I felt that this article's issues were such that they could not easily be addressed in a timely matter (particularly the paraphrasing problems), I opted to fail it to allow work without the time pressure of an ongoing review. To address your specific points:
 * (Combining the copyediting point here, for convenience) "The small ranching community of Lusk, Wyoming was an ideal location to cultivate young Owsley's interest in nature and science", for example, seems quite laudatory in tone. In fact, much of Early life trends towards that type of tone. For both tone and grammar, consider "it was now understood that the Arikara village was violently attacked..." - at this point, only Owsley himself knew that, it wasn't a general understanding, so the passive voice isn't appropriate. For "Allegations were made against the Branch Davidians that claimed", one of "allegations" or "claimed" would be appropriate, but not both. Other examples include "on the Lyon's property" (should be " Lyons' ") or "The goal was to reassemble the bones in same manner that they had seen the large frames of dinosaur bones" (missing a couple of words?). I also see a combination of British and American spelling ("archaeology" but "honors").
 * Yes, I read the source, but my concern is though it is obviously the purpose of forensic analysis to identify the dead, that does not necessarily mean that a forensic analyst will always be successful in doing so. In this case, as the source says only that he "worked on" 60 cases, I don't feel it's appropriate to assume that he was successful with all of them. Another example would be "While most game wardens enjoyed hunting and mounting their conquests" from earlier in the article - the source says that some game warden residences featured stuffed animal heads, but does not go so far as to say "most". See also "successfully preparing to go to medical school" - the source seems to indicate that he did not attend medical school, but "successfully" implies he did
 * I didn't look at the previous review, so it's quite possible you're getting conflicting feedback - an unfortunate side-effect of this type of process! However, while you have lots about his early life and education, you don't have much about his marriage (that would help) or his life apart from his career, and the "Personal background" section is only two short sentences. When in the 9/11 section Hilary is mentioned, it seems to come from nowhere. The Benedict book seems to have a lot more background, some of which would be helpful here. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your feedback. I appreciate your work. You've made some good points, although "on the Lyon's property" is accurate, since the family name was Lyon, rather than Lyons. Good catch on the British/American usage. I work in both countries and find myself often using terminology and slang kinda jumbled up. I'll take a look and see what I can do. Again, thanks for your help! Best regards,  Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 06:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Re "Lyon", because it's a family property one would more usually see either the plural possessive or simply "the Lyon property". Otherwise, good work so far. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I made the changes you suggested. I realize that you failed the article, I just appreciated the constructive feedback. I'll now spend some time working to include some content about his marriage and family. He is very private about his daughters and personal life, so there's not much available, but I could add what I have. I just hope the next guy doesn't come along and say it's all unnecessary. ;) Nature of the beast, I guess. Thanks again. Feel free to check back periodically and offer any feedback. Thanks again. Best regards,  Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 07:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment (from reviewer of Talk:Douglas W. Owsley/GA1). Cindy, you say above regarding his personal life: "The previous reviewer stated that it was unnecessary, so I'm a bit confused."
 * My only comment about unnecessary detail in GA1 regarding his personal life was the following: "Unnecessary detail: e.g. Her son's favorite dish was a casserole using a mixture of onions, celery, rice, and mushroom soup."
 * Cindy, you might ask Nikkimaria if she disagrees that this is unnecessary detail, to be sure that you understand. I don't want you to continue to be confused. Do you feel the "favorite dish" info should be included?
 * Please don't misrepresent my comments.
 * Also, as I clearly stated in the review, because of the severe copyvio/plagiarism/close paraphrasing problems in the lede, I didn't review the rest of the article, just picking out a few examples like the "favorite dish" example. I'm sorry that you found the experience so unpleasant, even though the three "second opinion" editors you selected agreed with me. I urge to to be kinder to reviewers, like me. We are just editors trying to do our best. MathewTownsend (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Mathew, I don't know what I ever did to you to become the focus of your wrath. Why the vendetta? You reviewed the article and failed it. Plain and simple. I hold no ill will toward you and moved on a long time ago. You provided some valuable input which has been incorporated into my work. While your editing ideas at times were inspired, I simply disagreed with your manner of communication. And still don't. The GAN process does not call for the repeated personal attacks and harassment that you have engaged in throughout en.wp. At this point, the harassment and hounding really needs to end. The battleground mentality has become disruptive to the community. Best regards,  Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 14:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please point out any "personal attacks" I made. I criticized aspects of your GA nomination, which was my job, and you seem to interpret those as "personal attacks". I think it was all the negative posts you made about me during and after the review your article that led me to think you bore me ill will, even after you obtained three second opinions that agreed with me. e.g., However, if you no longer feel that way, and if you now understand what Worm, Dcoetzee, and Franamax were saying to you in GA1, rather than blaming me, it will help you clean up this article. Actually, I would appreciate an apology from you. Wishing you the best, MathewTownsend (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Both of you, this really isn't the best forum to pursue that discussion - please take it to one of your talk pages, or to some form of dispute resolution if necessary. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)