Talk:Noel Lee (executive)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 13:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, this has been stuck on the GA queue for ages, and as I recognise the Monster brand of cables I'm happy to review it.

The most obvious problem is that the article is quite short and frankly I'm not sure that Lee is actually independently notable enough to have his own article. Nevertheless I'll have a read through and see what I can advise for the article's future. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Name

Currently, Noel Lee is a redirect to Noël Lee. Since there is no other notable person with this exact name, you could make a convincing argument for renaming this article, removing the disambiguating "(executive)". This can be either done by tagging the existing redirect with {{db-move}} and then moving the article (you can do this in one step if you're an admin), or filing a requested move.

Lead

• Lee's date of birth is not mentioned in the body, nor is it cited to a reliable source in the lead. This is a major problem, as notable people (most obviously female celebrities eg: Elisabeth Sladen) lie about their age so often we can't generally trust a DOB to be correct without a good source that proves their actual age. Obviously it's less likely that Lee would do this, but it's still possible.

 Done If I remember correctly there were a couple sources talking about how he was born on Christmas, which is why he was named Noel, but I didn't include this as it sounded like trivia to me. Now I'm actually wondering if that should go in. CorporateM (Talk) 18:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I think we're okay putting it in, on my sweep round for further sources I found at least two that confirmed his DOB as 12/25/48 Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• "business person" should read "businessperson"

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 17:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• The first two sentences could be combined.

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 17:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• "Lee quit his engineering job" - suggest "He quit his engineering job"

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 17:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not familiar with the term "lamp wire"; can you suggest another term to use here instead? Would electrical wiring do?

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 17:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• "But sales picked up" - suggest "Sales improved"

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 17:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Further comments on the body will follow later. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Early life

• "San Francisco, CA" would be better worded as "San Francisco, California" as readers outside the US won't be familiar with state abbreviations

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 17:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• The prose up to the USA Today source is quite choppy and probably could be combined into one sentence

I think one sentence would be a run-on, but I combined a very short sentence that I think was making it choppy. Is that better? CorporateM (Talk) 18:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that looks better. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 18:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• "when the Communist Party took power." - "after the Chinese Communist Revolution in 1949" (with wikilink) would be better

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 18:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• "He took interest in music as a child" - the source also says his tastes were quite diverse, which would be worth adding to the article

Are you referring to this?: "recalling this his musical interests were 'much more diverse than other kids'". Because this is attributed to a quote from him, I'm not sure it's reliable for the claim, but I don't mind putting it in if you feel strongly. (or is there another part of the source text you're referring to) CorporateM (Talk) 18:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Well I think it's reliable in the sense that nobody would dispute that he didn't say it, so possibly dropping it as a quotation would work. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done Fair enough; added with attribution. CorporateM (Talk) 18:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• "and married when he was 18 years old." - the San Francisco Chronicle source given does not say this
• "Lee attended college at San Francisco City College," - the first "college" is redundant

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 18:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• California Polytechnic State University should be stated in full, again for the benefit of non-US readers

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 18:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• "There he was exposed to toxic doses of radiation, which caused a degenerative nerve disorder that prevents him from walking without a wheelchair or Segway" - this is cited to two reliable sources (so concerns per WP:BLP do not apply), but I think this fact would sit later on in the article - he didn't immediately have mobility problems at this point

I didn't notice the disorder didn't develop until later on, but I would still prefer it in the chronology where he was exposed to radiation, as oppose to when the symptoms occured (which were probably gradual, over time and don't sit at any distinct year). What if I put something like "which later caused" CorporateM (Talk) 18:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

What I would recommend is a "Personal life" section, that talks about his family (including the marriage at 18, provided we get a source for it), then a mention for his nerve disorder. The key point I think I would make here is that it isn't the main focus on his professional life, some sources document he has the disorder but are far more focused on his leadership of Monster and his contributions to the music industry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 18:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• "to play drums for a country-rock cover band" - the source given says the band was folk rock (possibly splitting hairs, but then again, possibly not!)

 Done I thought they were the same thing and was trying to avoid copyright infringement (I think that's what I was thinking at the time), but it looks like they are indeed different. I've corrected it. CorporateM (Talk) 18:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

FYI - I just noticed this source from the International Directory of Company Histories says "Asian country rock". Not sure which source is correct. CorporateM (Talk) 23:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• "due to a misunderstanding about the type of music they played, they were fired" - the source does not say this, merely that "The band broke up after a year and a half"

Appears to be verified here CorporateM (Talk) 23:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory should be stated in full

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 18:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• "According to Lee, the work at Lawrence Berkeley was boring, and he quit six months later." - the source says he quit after six months, but not that the work was boring

Monster

• "Noel Lee founded Monster" per WP:LASTNAME should just say "Lee founded Monster" - though I think it would be beneficial to say Monster Cable Products in full. Also, if "Monster Cable products" is its "formerly" name, why is it the title of that article?

I prefer to use full names at the beginning of each section, but my understanding is that our manual of style does technically prefer your version. The current name of the company article is Monster (company), not its former name Monster Cable Products, unless I'm missing something? Monster, Inc. would be its full name spelled out, but I think we normally drop stuff like Inc. or LLC. CorporateM (Talk) 18:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the guideline is if somebody is mentioned at, say, the top of a long article then right down the bottom, it's okay to use the first name, last name combination again, but otherwise I'd drop it out of everything except first mentions in the lead and body. Seems to be pretty consistent with every GA / FA I've looked at. "Monster Inc." is fine to use as the WP:COMMONNAME; certainly Apple Inc. does it. As I mentioned above, the names could be improved to get rid of disambiguation brackets. Now I've done some research, I'm convinced this article should just be Noel Lee. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I tried to move it and now see what you were referring to. Noel Lee is a redirect to Noël Lee. I think the two names are close enough to need disambiguation. CorporateM (Talk) 19:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Well the requested move is up on the talk page, so pop over there and voice your opinion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't really find article naming debates to be worth the effort - either way would be fine. I'll leave it be and we'll go with whatever. CorporateM (Talk) 19:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• "He met resistance" - I wouldn't bother putting an inline citation for this fact, it's adequately justified by the remainder of the sentence

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 18:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• "By the next CES" - when was this? 1980?

The source just says "However, it was at the following CES show, where he received an order for 30,000 cables and the company took off." If you're comfortable with a tad of synth/OR, we can use common sense and say 1980, because CES is an annual conference and the first CES referred to in the article is 1979. CorporateM (Talk) 19:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• "By the next CES, Lee had an order from a Canadian supplier for 30,000 cables." - the sources given say that the order was 30,000 cables, but neither seems to mention the customer was Canadian

 Done Trimmed it. CorporateM (Talk) 19:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Summary

• Having looked through a number of sources, I think I've spotted a serious problem with this article meeting the GA criteria at this time - it just isn't broad enough in coverage. The news pieces supplied go into far more depth about his life and career, and while that gives me more confidence that he should have his own article as opposed to just a bit of Monster's one, it really doesn't cover enough of his life in depth. The pre-Monster career, including the offer of a world tour when he was a drummer is glossed over, and his opinions on the music industry could be further captured.

A further issue is a number of comments above are along the lines of "the source doesn't say that", which means the article is not currently factually accurate and verifiable in a number of areas.

Based on those two key issues, I don't think I can put the review on hold or pass it in the short term. I would, however, encourage further work on it, expanding information from the sources already supplied, and closely checking and removing claims that are not verifiable. Then we'll be able to regroup for another GA review at some point later. Rather than leave this review on a downbeat note, I can't promise anything, but since most sources are online, I may be able to help out with expanding and improving it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, as promised, I've added a few things, mostly non-Monster Inc. stuff that shows he's independently notable, and I'll see if I can get a chance to add some more later, particularly for things like Monster Music and the stars he apparently likes to "hob-nob" with. I'll also set up a requested move to get rid of the "executive" on the title. I think that will probably make me a bit too involved in the article to do a GA review, but what I can do is badger one of my friends to take a look and jump the queue, as it's not really fair to wait all this time and not get the article in the shape you want, is it? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding whether you are too involved to do a GA review, WP:NOTBUREAU comes to mind. Regarding being comprehensive, there is some additional material that can be added using existing sources. When I wrote this 1.5 years ago, I was often getting the feedback that I was being too detailed and this was some kind of COI issue. Since then I have done a few GA reviews myself and found that actually other editors were much more detailed than I ever was. The idea that I was overly detailed was in fact a false perception in response to a COI disclosure. Being that I wrote the article 1.5 years ago, it needs a fresh look for new sources as well. I will get to work on some additional research/etc.. CorporateM (Talk) 19:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@User:Ritchie333 FYI - I made the copyedits and corrections in article-space, but now that we're moving on to some more significant content additions, I'm going to continue working on it at User:CorporateM/Noel Lee and use a Request Edit per WP:COI. CorporateM (Talk) 23:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)