Talk:Lloyd Monserratt/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Larry Hockett (talk · contribs) 22:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll be happy to review this nomination. I will have more specific feedback shortly, but at a glance I am concerned that some of the November 2006 GA review feedback hasn't been implemented. GA reviews were somewhat different back then (it looks like the review was provided on the article talk page rather than on a dedicated GA review page), but there are a number of good suggestions there on items like grammar and punctuation (examples: no italics in Third World Coalition, missing article in "of Greek system", and unnecessary article in "the UCLA's administration"). I don't think it's necessary to quick fail this nomination, even if it could be justified under WP:GAFAIL #5. However, moving forward I would expect the nominator to address the review feedback quickly so that we can work through some longstanding problems. Larry Hockett (Talk) 22:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Lead

• The lead is inadequate to summarize the body of the article; another paragraph (focusing on his career after UCLA) should do the trick.

• No comma needed after the date of death since you have parentheses.

• "subsequently ruled ineligible to hold office" - even in the lead, we need some brief indication of why he was said to be ineligible

• In the image caption, go with "Monserratt circa 1999" or even just "Circa 1999" since we know it's a picture of this article subject.

Early life

• The information about Monserratt's early life doesn't seem to be supported by what is now reference #1.
• I'm unclear as to what reference #2 represents. Was this a publication produced by the troop itself?
• Linking to El Cid is questionable to me. Regardless of the inspiration for the bookstore's name, it doesn't really help the reader to read about a Spanish warlord from a thousand years ago.

Thanks to the nominator for the work that has gone into this entry already. More feedback to come. Larry Hockett (Talk) 23:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Student leadership at UCLA

• First paragraph: Very little of this content is supported by the cited source. Will probably need a partial rewrite.
• Even if we can find supporting sources for the content, rephrase to avoid using Coalition so much.
• We can take out the wikilinks to common words - not needed for student, Third World, or coalition.
• "dispute over his academic qualifications" - The dispute apparently didn't lead to him being declared ineligible; the source says he was removed from the ballot for a low GPA and too few credit hours, and this caused a dispute.
• "Prior to the election, the student Election Board had approved the applications ..." - The rest of this seems unsourced.
• "After USAC ex post facto declared Monserratt ineligible" - This doesn't seem to be supported by the LA Times article (now ref #6); the article said Monserratt alleged that the school lost paperwork from an independent study course that would have given him the necessary GPA and credits. This is different from an ex post facto issue.
• Fourth paragraph: "heated rally" and "near riot" aren't really neutral/helpful descriptors. The sources seem to indicate that the protestors turned over ballot boxes, tore down voting booths, and exchanged punches with election officials.
• Fifth paragraph ("At the time ...") - I can't access the LA Times link, but I am looking up the article title on newspapers.com and what I am finding doesn't mention UCLA or support the direct quote. The newspapers.com link corresponds to the date and article title, but it is on page B4, not page 4, and I am not sure what Part 2 means. Are we looking at different editions of the paper?
• "After a change of control two years later ..." - You might just say that two years after he was declared ineligible, Monserratt was recognized as the rightful winner of the election (the bit about "change of control" is a little confusing to read and some change of control would be expected for a student government after two years at a college).
• Regarding his picture currently hanging in the president's office, see WP:WTW about the use of current. The cited source doesn't seem to support that content, but even if it did, it is 18 years old, so it's a stretch to call it current.

Political

• "Monserratt honed the political organizing skills learned at UCLA" - This isn't very encyclopedic.
• Reference #13 (Black Press USA) is a dead URL; even the archive link is dead.

To be continued. Larry Hockett (Talk) 00:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Political (cont'd)

• "A noted campaign manager..." - Gephardt wasn't the campaign manager, so rework the grammar here.
• That sentence is supported by the dead link mentioned above, so I can't tell whether "noted" is appropriate or not, or whether they gave Monserratt credit for the six victories.
• "His personal style was to..." - The cited source doesn't speak much to his personal style or to work behind the scenes.
• "Though Morales lost..." - This sentence is problematic for two reasons: 1) close paraphrasing and 2) this is basically Monserratt telling us that Monserratt's work was important.
• Several issues regarding the phone bank stuff. The DA stated that no laws had been broken - much harder to say that none had actually been broken. Other sources are more direct in implicating Monserratt as the person responsible (instead of "the campaign ran a tape"). I don't think we can reliably say whose reputations were or were not tarnished.

Community action

• "He once said..." - The source does not support that as a direct quote. Even if he said it, it would be questionably appropriate for an encyclopedia.
• If there is a source for that as a direct quote, remember the closing quotation mark.
• In the last paragraph, those two sentences don't seem to fit together like a typical paragraph. (The self-pride quote doesn't seem to be directly related to being a leader or motivator.)

Death

• "His death sent a shock" - this isn't encyclopedic and I think we can leave it out. It would be surprising if someone's sudden death did not shock his or her colleagues.
• On the death itself, the explanation feels disorganized. We need a linear explanation. Something like this: "Monserratt went to the hospital for ____________ (type of surgery). He experienced ____________ and _______________ (complications) and died on ___________. His partner said that his death involved medical malpractice on the part of a physician with a history of substance abuse." Then maybe something about the legislation if Monserratt's family helped it to be signed into law.

Memorials

• It might be better to convert these bullet points into sentences, but honestly if you can get through all of this other feedback above, I won't hold up GA status over this one.

There is a lot of work to do here. The biggest issue is that, in several places, the sources don't support the content in our article. Once we rewrite some of these sentences to address this issue, that could bring up more work. I have noted close paraphrasing in at least one section, but I won't exhaustively search for that problem until we fix the issues above.

The GA process is intended to take about seven days, but that isn't a hard-and-fast rule. Let me know if you would rather close the nomination and work on this at your leisure before renominating it. Larry Hockett (Talk) 01:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm closing this nomination, as we are about ten days into the review with no response to the feedback. It can be nominated again once an editor is willing to address the feedback. Larry Hockett (Talk) 09:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)