Jump to content

Talk:Eric Garcetti

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

However, troughout Garcetti's success there has been a continous feud with some of the neighborhood councils that are situated within Garcetti's District 13; none more other than with the Elysian Valley Riverside Neighborhood Council. Continuing debates on Garcetti's lack of involvement with Elysian Valley, one of District 13's has brought upon an increase in mistrust with many of the issues regarding low income families. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.205.105.10 (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None more so, you say? Like the rest of the city, you've completely forgotten about his cozy relationship with the LAPD during the Rampart Scandal - But you can be forgiven that, because the Wikipedia article (for example) on the Rampart Scandal concentrates entirely on a handful of incidents - Making the extent of The Scandal (hundreds of officers carrying on like gangsters) incomprehensible to anyone trying to understand it today. Blame cannot be said to rest entirely on junior's shoulders - The rotten apple didn't fall far from the tree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.205.105.11 (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, it says "Garcetti has publicly stated his deeply held belief that water is a living thing, and that the only proper use for it is in dancing fountains, saying, "It's a good entertainment." According to Garcetti, drinking or even bathing in water is an affront to its "spirit," and he has further advocated in favor of having all fountains blessed by priests.[101]" --- I'm pretty sure that this was a joke — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.198.183.26 (talk) 14:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image

[edit]

Howdy- So I noticed an edit war has started on this page about the image, which may or may not be free. Rather than breakk 3RR (which some editors may have done), I wanted to open a discussion here on what to do with the image. PrairieKid (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even see the previous edit battle before I uploaded and changed the picture on the Garcetti page. I don't see the issue though; the image is part of the Public Domain in the State of California, as I have already put on the licensing section on the picture's page. What's the issue? Ajw522 (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

[edit]

There are two references to Garcetti's paternal grandfather and his Mexican origins. The first one needs to be removed; there's no reason for such a reference between the mentions of Garcetti's mother and father. I would attempt this, but the footnoting is so complex I'm sure I'd screw it up. Could someone please look at this? Rontrigger (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Too much detail?

[edit]

Do we really need the day-by-day detail of his actions in office, particularly in the Mayor of Los Angeles section)? If so, by the end of his term, the article will likely exceed any reasonable human's attention span, and make it impossible to really learn anything about him. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone care, one way or the other? Is this latest bit really something anyone cared about for more than a moment? I'm getting ready to take an axe to a lot of this stuff, per WP:NOTNEWS. Objections? In case it needs to be said, I have no opinion on the subject himself. I don't live in the city of L.A. and don't care about its politics. He doesn't get to have his daily list of accomplishments promoted here, though. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He seems like a nice a guy, but this article reads like his resume.

In the personal life section, there is an abrupt shift from discussing his religion to a few sentences about his sister, Dana Garcetti-Boldt. The article makes no clear connection to his sister, so the reference seems out of place. If there is some reason for including the reference at all, it should be in a separate paragraph. —HowardBGolden (talk) 06:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

101SlowJam is not a rap song

[edit]

See title. This is just Eric Garcetti speaking over music. What is this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.209.98.66 (talk) 22:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Eric Garcetti. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:50, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Eric Garcetti. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This GA review fails. It was partially withdrawn by the nominator, and the issues brought up still need to be addressed. --DannyS712 (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Eric Garcetti/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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


Review

[edit]
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

[edit]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@Woko Sapien: thanks. I look forward to your ping --DannyS712 (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Woko Sapien: Any update? --DannyS712 (talk) 05:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@Woko Sapien: Please let me know when you think its done. --DannyS712 (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyS712: Will do! Woko Sapien (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@Woko Sapien: In that case, I'll close this. Good luck with the renomination --DannyS712 (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Orphaned references in Eric Garcetti

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Eric Garcetti's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "MEE_crackdown":

  • From Mohammed bin Salman: Dahan, Nadine (28 June 2018). "Saudi women's rights activist arrested as long-time driving ban lifted". Middle East Eye. Archived from the original on 2 August 2019. Retrieved 3 August 2019.
  • From 2018–2019 Saudi crackdown on feminists: Dahan, Nadine (2018-06-28). "Saudi women's rights activist arrested as long-time driving ban lifted". Middle East Eye. Archived from the original on 2019-08-02. Retrieved 2019-08-03.

Reference named "ThReut_Abdelaziz_Zahrani":

Reference named "OHCHR_2018crackdown":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eric_Garcetti&oldid=1246169840"