Talk:Ephraim Owens/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kncny11 (talk · contribs) 22:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I'm going to be taking a look at this article. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 22:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is quite clunky. In 506 words of prose, "Owens" appears 12 times (2%), "Austin" appears 12 times (2%), and "he" appears 22 times (4%). Additionally, many paragraphs do not seem to flow logically. For example, the third sentence of "Career" jumps backwards and forwards in time, while the first paragraph of that section contains two separate thoughts: he is a fixture in the Austin music scene, and the mayor declared this day a holiday.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	There is a heavy reliance on direct quotations that goes against MOS:QUOTE.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	None of the references are formatted properly. Perhaps most egregiously, there is a link in the lede to "endnote Spearman", which does not seem to exist.
	2b. 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).	Besides some of the neutrality concerns highlighted below, AllMusic is not considered a reliable source because it is user-generated. It can be used for reviews, but not so much factual content. See WP:ALLMUSIC.
	2c. it contains no original research.	There are some neutrality concerns (also discussed below) whereupon a brief editorial fragment of praise is blown out of proportion.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Pending
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	This is the hard fail. This man has been alive for 48 years and has been performing for almost 27. Yet, the section about his career only seems to cover 1997, 2008, and 2015-2020. What did he do during the 2000s? Even the parts that are included are only alluded to, such as in the paragraph beginning "Owens has toured". You mention Sheryl Crow, Mumford & Sons, and Patty Griffin, but don't go into any detail on what those collaborations were, exactly. His time with the Tedeschi Tracks Band was important enough to make it into the lede, but receives all of two sentences in the body. Some of the "associated acts" in the infobox are not mentioned anywhere in the body of the article.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	With what scant information I am given, I cannot truly assess the focus of the article. Yes, it primarily addresses Ephraim Owens, but all of the parts are so disparate that it still seems muddled.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The assertions that Owens is "one of the most highly regarded jazz musicians in Austin" and one of the "most highly regarded practitioners of the art form" are unbacked by citations. They both recall one Austin Chronicle paper that, while the lede certainly paints Owens in a positive light, does not describe him in superlatives.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Very little editing overall since 2021 began.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Image appears to be Creative Commons.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Image is relevant to topic, as it is a picture of the article subject.
	7. Overall assessment.	There is always some controversy, with regards to good article nominations, as to what the dividing line is for putting an article on hold versus failing it right out of the gate. One solid benchmark I have found is that, if the issues to the article will realistically require more than one week to complete, it is better to fail the article to allow for this large-scale overhaul. The neutrality and prose issues could theoretically be resolved in a week. A much larger problem is that Owens is, effectively, only afforded 19 words for every year of his performing career. The level of additional detail that would be needed to make this a good article is an unreasonable expectation for one week, so I am going to fail this nomination and hope that you will come back after putting some more time and prose into this page. Kncny11 (shoot) 22:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)