Talk:Denis Eden/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dugan Murphy (talk · contribs) 00:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I am starting the review and will write out the details below. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Reads well.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   The lead seems short for the length of the article and there seem to be too many individual sections, but I don't believe either of these issues need to be addressed to achieve GAN. To further improve this article, I also see some MOS:ELLIPSIS issues (for example, "dull casts ... That he was" should be dull casts .... That he was". Also, quotations are given in single quotation marks and quotations within them are marked with double quotation marks. It should be the opposite, per MOS:DOUBLE and MOS:QWQ. You should put quotations more than about 40 words into MOS:BLOCKQUOTEs.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Ref 2: I can find no mention of Eden in 1868 or in any of the years of the 1880s at that link. Ref 5: I can't verify that there is a periodical called The Gower with the information in this citation. Ref 6: A Wikipedia article is not a reliable source (see WP:RSPRIMARY). Ref 7: This looks to me like a shaky use of a primary source (see WP:RSPRIMARY) when a secondary source is preferred. This issue is complicated by the fact that the reference gives no information on how to find the letter in the archives to verify this statement. Ref 9 says Eden's father was "a watercolour artist of English landscape", but not necessarily that he was successful. Does the book say he was successful? I can't get ahold of the book to verify. Refs 17 and 19 are for quotations, but the references says the text is paraphrasing. Which is it? Furthermore, neither of those links, nor the link for ref 20, display the quotes given. I will review references 21–118 after I hear back from the nominator on reconciling these issues from references 1–20.

   C. It contains no original research:

   This is the biggest stumbling block to GA status. This article is rife with original research. Note that WP:PRIMARY says "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." The interpretive claim, "Eden Sr would also have known", is supported by ref 11, which makes no mention of Eden Sr or his knowledge of the St John's Wood Art School. Both of the statements "shunned this emerging modernism and were enthralled by" and "a certain gaucheness" appear to be original research interpreting the primary source letter in ref 17. The same could be said about "Disappointingly for Eden" and ref 20 that supports it. The editorialized judgments "moralistic-sounding" and "enigmatically titled" do not appear to be supported by any secondary source. I will search the rest of the article for original research after I hear back from the nominator on reconciling these issues from the first 4 sections (through "To Italy").

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Nothing I can find.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   I don't think I saw anything in this article about Eden's legacy or the way he is viewed by art historians, academics, or his contemporaries. That seems to be an important aspect of a biography for an artist.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   For a GA-level review, I think this article passes, but ideally much of the detail in this article would be cut or summarized. For example, there are sections focused largely on Helen Eden, who has her own stub article where much of that content would find a better home.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   I don't see any issues here.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No edits from July until some edits I made in October.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   All images are works of art by Eden himself, who died more than 70 years ago, putting them in the public domain.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   There is a lot of what looks like original research in this article and many issues I see with the citations.

   It has been 11 days with no response from the nominator, so I am closing out this review. If someone is able to address these issues, they are welcome to renominate. Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)