Talk:Ernie O'Malley/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: asilvering (talk · contribs) 05:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about this - this one is a quickfail. It's almost entirely sourced to his own writing. There are some entire subsections that are only referenced to primary sources (eg "Easter Rising and Irish Volunteers"). Furthermore, the material from his own writings are usually reported in "wikipedia voice" (rather than "O'Malley wrote that he..."), which makes it look like the sources used were independent. It can't be a GA in this state, but I'll still do a partial review and leave some comments under the box.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

The primary source problem is the biggest one, of course. This needs a lot more from secondary sources - historians, etc.
Finding and incorporating more of those will help fill in 3a: what do people think about this guy? why was what he did important? There's some of this in the "Writings" section specifically about his individual books, but overall this is missing from the article, or the reader needs to already know about various events/people to understand what makes this relevant. Basically: he's clearly notable - so what?
1b: the lead is much too short for an article of this length. But actually, it's a pretty good summary of who he is and what makes him notable, so it might not actually need that much expanding, because:
- 3b: a lot of this text can stand to be removed or tightened. Some examples:
  - He was also stopped by an RIC patrol in Philipstown, in the same county, and came close to drawing a concealed gun. So what? Either this is important, and should be explained, or it's not important, and should be removed.
  - O'Malley's arrest sheet records him as being from Roscommon and in possession of cigarettes, the loaded weapon and four maps, but not the watch, fountain-pen, wallet with £18 in it, rosary beads and a holy medal which were also taken from him. Obviously, this was important to O'Malley. But this article is about 5000 words long. Is this worth nearly 1% of our total words on O'Malley? Is it important to readers?
  - He recounts meeting an old woman who told his fortune and spoke of fighting and trouble ahead. There are several lines like this that are useful to set tone and explain background in his autobiography, but not so useful in an encyclopedia article.
1b, word choice: sometimes this article is citing "O'Malley" when I'm fairly certain it must actually be the editor's introduction to the book...? Example: As an adult, O'Malley was thin, of above average height, with flaming red hair and pale skin. He walked with a long stride and possessed a steady gaze. Maybe that's actually O'Malley, but I struggle to imagine someone describing themselves as "possessing a steady gaze". If these are the editor's words, cite the editor. (Bonus: that's a secondary source.)
text and images in general: this is a huge wall of text. In some parts, the paragraphs are very short and should be consolidated. Some new subsections might also be useful. In general, removing less-relevant material will help. It would also be good to have some more images in here that relate to the events in the article. A few ideas that might work: a picture of the Joy. The cover to one of his books. A picture of Helen Hooker. Some photographs of armies, elections, etc. That sort of thing.

I think that's enough for now. Good luck! I'm closing this review, but you're welcome to ask questions about the review here or on my talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 06:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The primary source problem is the biggest one, of course. This needs a lot more from 7 sources - historians, etc. + I agree fully and the number and scope of sources has been improved substantially. • Finding and incorporating more of those will help fill in 3a: what do people think about this guy? why was what he did important? There's some of this in the "Writings" section specifically about his individual books, but overall this is missing from the article, or the reader needs to already know about various events/people to understand what makes this relevant. Basically: he's clearly notable - so what? + I trust the expanded Lead and Legacy sections address these points satisfactorily. • 1b: the lead is much too short for an article of this length. But actually, it's a pretty good summary of who he is and what makes him notable, so it might not actually need that much expanding, because: o 3b: a lot of this text can stand to be removed or tightened. Some examples:  He was also stopped by an RIC patrol in Philipstown, in the same county, and came close to drawing a concealed gun. So what? Either this is important, and should be explained, or it's not important, and should be removed. + Done: (subject risked death or arrest)  O'Malley's arrest sheet records him as being from Roscommon and in possession of cigarettes, the loaded weapon and four maps, but not the watch, fountain-pen, wallet with £18 in it, rosary beads and a holy medal which were also taken from him. Obviously, this was important to O'Malley. But this article is about 5000 words long. Is this worth nearly 1% of our total words on O'Malley? Is it important to readers? + Fair point: moved to a footnote.  He recounts meeting an old woman who told his fortune and spoke of fighting and trouble ahead. There are several lines like this that are useful to set tone and explain background in his autobiography, but not so useful in an encyclopedia article. + Yes indeed. Hopefully text of that nature, if present at all, is more focused this time. • 1b, word choice: sometimes this article is citing "O'Malley" when I'm fairly certain it must actually be the editor's introduction to the book...? Example: As an adult, O'Malley was thin, of above average height, with flaming red hair and pale skin. He walked with a long stride and possessed a steady gaze. Maybe that's actually O'Malley, but I struggle to imagine someone describing themselves as "possessing a steady gaze". If these are the editor's words, cite the editor. (Bonus: that's a secondary source.) + There is a new short section about his person and character, where sources are used correctly. • text and images in general: this is a huge wall of text. In some parts, the paragraphs are very short and should be consolidated. Some new subsections might also be useful. In general, removing less-relevant material will help. It would also be good to have some more images in here that relate to the events in the article. A few ideas that might work: a picture of the Joy. The cover to one of his books. A picture of Helen Hooker. Some photographs of armies, elections, etc. That sort of thing. + I've revised both the main and subheadings, adding several new. Also, I could find no free photo of Hooker, and the one in Commons cannot be used elsewhere (as I was informed!). Nor could I locate a usable cover to any of his books. It would be very useful for you to identify any existing images you feel could be removed without loss. + Thanks a lot! Regards Billsmith60 (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]