Talk:G. E. L. Owen/GA2

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

While this has been just passed as a Good Article, I am afraid I have to challenge that very short review on grounds that it is not broad in coverage (3a), and to a lesser extent, neutral (4).

First, broad in coverage. The article is simply too short to be comprehensive. G. E. L. Owen is a major figure and the current article, at 1,700 words of prose, is not doing him justice. Sections on works and legacy are just three short paragraphs. Related to this is the article is primarily based on a two sources and Schofield (2004) - that one is not linked in a way that allows easy verification (instead of linking t  it directly links to a subscription page for the OBD ). It is reliable, but an article like this should be written after consultation with other, numerous, biographies of the subject (some are cited in the article; others include his biographies in works like, and . The article doesn't mention the 2006 volume dedicated to GELOwen . The article fails to cite even a single academic paper about Owen's life and work. On a side note, a book chapter (Evans, 2005) is cited without a page range, while a reference to Montanari (2003) links to a broken (?) webpage that doesn't even mention the subject: . The bibliography section is badly formatted - ISBNs are not cited, it is not clear whether some works are articles, book chapters or like (Montanari...). Cooper's article in the REOP is cited but inexplicably not linked.

Second, neutrality. It is WP:UNDUE that a section on "Allegation of sexual misconduct" is roughly the same size as the legacy or works section. If the article was sufficiently fleshed out, this section might be fine, but as it is, it stands out as a sore, undue thumb.

Bottom line, a Good Article cannot be written summarizing two sources. More sources should have been consulted and the resulting article should have been longer, which would address the balance issue - I very much doubt that any of the existing academic level biographies of GEL Owen dedicate such a big proportion of his article (close to 20%) to the sensationalist "allegation of sexual misconduct". This article is a good start, and I'd pass it for a B-class, but not for a GA. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: On the topic of neutrality, I agree that the section is perhaps unnecessarily prominent. However, I think this might have been corrected with bold action and I would not object to the nominator's input on how the section can be reduced, given that this review's aim should be improvement in the first place. On the sourcing: the article is based on Ackrill's obituary in the PBA and Schofield's biography for ODNB. These are both comprehensive and reliable sources. Other sources were consulted, but Ackrill in particular is on the more detailed end of academic biographies. Judging from these sources, I still believe that Owen's life and career are represented at an appropriate length. I agree that his work and legacy might well be expanded (again, any assistance is welcome). But again, nearly all sources provide only overviews of his scholarly work. Considering that we are operating in a summary style, I believe the initial reviewer saw the article in fulfilment of the footnote to criterion 3a: It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics. Yes, the review by StraussInTheHouse was short but, having read much of the available coverage of Owen, I think their biggest oversight was neutrality and not breadth of coverage. I am more than happy to work on the neutrality aspect aspect but I'd ask you to reconsider on 3a, given that the criterion makes it explicit that overviews of complex topics, while unacceptable for FA, are in order for GA. On a different note, might you please stop implicitly suggesting that the allegation section was meant to disparage the subject of the article? I acknowledge that it is undue but there is no bad faith involved from me or the review.  Modussiccandi (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have condensed the section in question and integrated it into a new "personal life" section; I'm open to further measures if desired. I've added ISBNs to the bibliographical items that have them and I've removed the broken link. On sources: contrary to what what the nominator alleges, the anniversary volume on Owen is mentioned in the text, so I won't add much more content about the book. For some reason, my institution doesn't give me access to the volumes mentioned above, but maybe can help with that. Modussiccandi (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thank you for your explanations and copyedits. I am satisfied re neutrality, and I did not mean to imply that anyone was operating in bad faith - however, intentionally or not, the article (and the recent DYK hook) were a bit... sensationalist. This is now fixed. Regarding whether the article is comprehensive enough. I would like to see work and or legacy expanded a bit, but I don't have access to the other sources. Can you address the minor issues about references: add page numbers to Evans, add the direct URL to Routledge Encycloped,a add missing ISBNs to books, explain what type of source is Montanari? Re: " the anniversary volume on Owen is mentioned in the text" - I think you mention a different volume, the one I found is more recent (2006)? I can't find it mentioned. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  02:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Re. the anniversary volume: I think there was a misunderstanding. Language and Logos was published in 1982, which is why the PhilPapers abstract mentions his sixtieth birthday. Perhaps the 2006 version is a reprint of sorts but I believe it's the same book. About the referencing: Evans doesn't have a page range because I consulted the online edition where no page numbers are supplied. I have tried to address the lack of URLs. Re. Montanari: Catalogus Philologorum Classicorum is a database for biographical information on classical scholars. I'm not sure how to indicate that in the reference section; maybe you can give me some advice on that. Now, finally, about the additional sources: I have talked to StraussInTheHouse and found out that neither his nor my institution grant online access to those volumes. My university's libraries are closed because of the pandemic but I think it would still be possible to improve the legacy section. My suggestion would be to expand the content on his scholarly work with the sources presently available, given they're reliable and fairly comprehensive. I'll ping you once that's done, let me know in case you object. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have now carved out a paragraph in the "legacy" section about his influence on the study of Plato. I've also added to the "works" section and represented some of the "legacy" bits in the lead. "Works" and "legacy" are now roughly the same size as "career", which I think is a reasonable balance. I realise one could write much longer sections on Owen's publications and legacy, which I might get around to doing once my physical libraries open. For the time being, I hope that the article in its current form fulfils the GA criterion to provide a summary for all the subject's main aspects. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I agree, the recent improvements are good enough for me to withdraw my objections. If this ever goes to FA we will need to those other sources too... thank you for the hard work! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: I did raise a similar concern regarding the sexual misconduct allegation at Special:Diff/1009611206, however, 's subsequent revisions, including singularising "allegations" satisfied me with respect to an overall neutral point of view. The sources  raises are most likely worthy of addition, which could in turn flesh out the academic content, thereby diminishing remaining weight concerns with regards to the allegation.  Perhaps more on his personal life and simply stating that the allegation was made there, without a subheading, would be more appropriate.  Regarding a Good Article cannot be written summarizing two sources, I'd have to disagree, there is no minimum number of sources listed in the good article criteria for consideration and when a topic is covered only by x sources, yet those sources are reliable, two sources may well be enough.  However, I would advise the original nominator to put a bit of time into reading summarising and including the sources  has brought up as that may well address both concerns raised.  Perhaps I ought to have kept it on hold for a while longer and suggested the allegation be included only in a passing sentence, but the review was clearly well-considered enough to be approved by  at [|the drive page]. , if you need access to any of the sources listed above, please ping me, I have institutional access to most of them.  Cheers,   SITH   (talk)   15:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * My review was for the purpose of the GA drive to check that the GA criteria were evaluated. It does not necessarily imply that the reviewer was correct in their assessment. I also note that it is not automatically UNDUE that sexual misconduct allegations are covered, even prominently in an article. If covered in reliable sources, then such allegations should receive coverage in the article proportionate to the RS coverage, otherwise what we're doing is whitewashing the subject. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Closing Per Piotrus' above comment and this conversation on his user talk page, I'll close this discussion as a keep since no further objections have been raised for a period of 7 days. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)