Talk:Eric Garcetti/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: DannyS712 (talk · contribs) 06:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Review

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Prose to clean up:

   • "He and his future wife studied as a Rhodes Scholar at The Queen's College, Oxford and also studied for a PhD in ethnicity and nationalism at the London School of Economics." (early life)
   • "He has served on the California board of Human Rights Watch, and currently serves on the advisory board for Young Storytellers, an arts education nonprofit organization based in Los Angeles." (professional career - when is currently, when was "has served"?)
   • the section headings and sub-headings under LA city council (2 subheadings, one with 3 sub-sub headings, its an odd layout)
   • "Garcetti has helped preserve some historic neighborhoods and landmarks, from the designation of Historic Filipinotown to Hollywood landmarks like the Palladium, which were at risk of being demolished. " (urban development, phrasing is confusing)
   • prose of the "budget policy" section

   I've only pointed out specific areas of cleanup until the budget section, but please just go through the article and read it out loud to yourself. It'll help find problematic phrasing. Also, the entire "tenure" section of his mayorship reads like a list. Can it be converted to a narrative, rather than a blow-by-blow "on ___, Garcetti did ___"

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   For part d, I reviewed every single issue that Earwig's detector had more than 20% confidence of a violation, and conclude that no violation occurred. I added one reference to a direct quote that was not immediately followed by a citation, but the citation was within a few sentences. No OR found.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Mostly focused, but some (tangentially related) random facts - do we really need the sentence "On May 7, 2014, Garcetti greeted President Barack Obama when he arrived in Los Angeles."? Also, what is the point of the section "electoral history" if it has no content?

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Includes positive and negative coverage, but far more positive. Can we try to tone down the language? (eg Awards section, but no criticism section, or the veteran's affairs section, with his "pledges" taking up more space than his actions?)

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No edit wars, no discussions in the talk page to indicate divisive and contentious arguments.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All of the captions are some variation on "Garcetti at ___ in ___". Can we try to make them more informative? See WP:CAP - context ("A picture captures only one moment in time. What happened before and after? What happened outside the frame?") and curiosity ("The caption should lead the reader into the article.")

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Discussion

@Woko Sapien: Can you look at my notes on the captions? I'm nowhere near done with the review, but I'd like this process to run efficiently, so I thought you could get started. --DannyS712 (talk) 06:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I've taken your advice and began making tweaks and improvements. I'm started with the smaller, more specific ones now - but I'll work my way onto the bigger stuff over time (the "Tenure" section probably being the most unwieldy of them all). Please let me know what you think of my progress so far, and don't hesitate to make more suggestions! Woko Sapien (talk) 20:32, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@Woko Sapien: Just want to make sure you haven't forgotten about this. --DannyS712 (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Haven't forgotten! As you can see in the revision history, I've been making spot improvements as I go along, which I think is more practical for an article this size than trying to do everything all at once. I'll let you know when I'm mostly done with these tweaks and overhauls. Woko Sapien (talk) 15:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Woko Sapien: than I'll wait for you to let me know when to reread the article, rather than checking it every day. Thanks. --DannyS712 (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good - and sorry for the confusion! Woko Sapien (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Have a look at it now. It's still not 100%, but I'd like to know what you think of the improvements thus far, and where you think there are still problems. Woko Sapien (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Woko Sapien: sorry for the delay, but I'm sorry to say that some of the problems I saw are still there. Looking at what's changed since the review started (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Garcetti&diff=874238126&oldid=870355778&diffmode=source), the prose is still of an issue (though less so), with lots of instances of "on ___, Garcetti did ___". The captions look okay, but could be improved, but the NPOV issue remains (see notes above). Sorry it took so long to get back to you --DannyS712 (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@DannyS712: No worries! I'll keep tinkering away over the next couple of weeks, addressing the concerns you still have. I'll let you know when I think it's ready for a reassessment. Woko Sapien (talk) 19:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Woko Sapien: thanks. I look forward to your ping --DannyS712 (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Woko Sapien: Any update? --DannyS712 (talk) 05:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Sorry for the silence - still recovering from the holidays! Anyway, I have tried to make that Veteran Affairs section more encyclopedic and less of an advertisement. I've also merged the Awards section with Personal Life because both sections were rather short to begin with, and you mentioned that the article shouldn't devote a whole section to awards if it doesn't likewise devote a section to criticism. On that note, I've been trying to gather enough references to constitute a criticism section but have had two problems: (1) most "criticisms" that I've encountered seem to be political bickering and gamesmanship, instead of broad-consensus dissent; (2) these sections seem to be used sparingly on Wikipedia already, unless a politician has been involved in a serious major scandal - which Garcetti hasn't. So I think the best way forward is to include a line or two in each Tenure section that scrutinizes how well his agenda has played out (like I did with the Veterans Affairs section) - if that sounds good. Woko Sapien (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Woko Sapien: That solves the bias problem, but the tenure section would still read like a timeline... --DannyS712 (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Yeah, I think that's going to be one the last big hurdles for this article. I'll keep tinkering away Woko Sapien (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Woko Sapien: Please let me know when you think its done. --DannyS712 (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Will do! Woko Sapien (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: While my ultimate goal is to eventually bring this up to GA status, the amount of work that still needs to be done is going to take a lot longer than I originally thought. You're more than welcome to fail it for now. I'll probably keep tinkering away and re-nominate it again at some point down the road. But right now, it's just not as high a priority. Thank you so much for your patience with this! Woko Sapien (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Woko Sapien: In that case, I'll close this. Good luck with the renomination --DannyS712 (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.