Talk:Noel Lee (executive)/Archives/2015

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

Author's comment

Comment: I would like to submit this article for Wikipedia's consideration on Monster's behalf. I believe it is neutral, well-cited and an improvement to Wikipedia. I'm also hoping to get some images if I can secure email approvals for Creative Commons. CorporateM (Talk) 19:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey Anthony. Do you think we name it something like "Noel Lee (businessman)". Not sure manufacturer is quite right. CorporateM (Talk) 13:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Done. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Improvements

I am dropping questionable references like [1] which don't appear to have a reputation for editorial quality. I'm also adding some sources and doing some copy editing. Regarding Lee's walking disorder, the prose read it as a factual statement, but credible source InsideBayArea reports it with doubt, so I summarize as presented in source. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 12:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Request Edit

I have done some copyediting throughout the article and noticed that Lee's degenerative disorder caused by exposure to radiation at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has been added redundantly in the Early life section:

  1. "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.[1][4]"
  2. "Noel gets around on a Segway. InsideBayArea reports that Noel said work at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory gave him nerve damage, where he was reportedly exposed to radiation.[10]"

In some cases I remove redundant information where I have a COI boldly, but in this case I want to avoid the appearance of removing this source inappropriately. The source is on a controversial subject and appears to skirt the line between belonging on the company page versus on Lee's page.

Pinging user:Anthonyhcole, who has collaborated on this page in the past. CorporateM (Talk) 13:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Noel Lee (executive)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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)
 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)
 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)
 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)

Requested move 09 December 2014

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. There is no consensus here that the cable guy is the primary topic for "Noel Lee". There does seem to be support for making Noel Lee into a disambiguation page rather than a redirect, though. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Noel Lee (executive) → Noel Lee – Noel Lee is currently a redirect to Noël Lee. There doesn't need to be a disambiguation as the two people go to unique pages, though there should be a hatnote on each pointing the reader to the other. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose Noël Lee the American classical pianist and composer is arguably the primary topic for both Noël Lee and Noel Lee, given that there are more books on pianists than on audio cables. Even if moved to Noël Lee (pianist), not sure removing (executive) from the audio cables manufacturer CEO is helpful. Probably a WP:TWODABS 50/50 situation. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm wondering if Monster (company) should be moved to Monster Cable Products per WP:NATURAL, many readers would think of Monster.com. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I am sympathetic to the possibility of confusion, but Monster Cable Products is not the company's name (they renamed to just Monster). Something like Monster (electronics company), might do the trick, even if a little awkwardly long. Disclosure: I have a COI with Monster/Lee. CorporateM (Talk) 22:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. As if the number of books about someone determined primary topic, lol. This is fairly natural disambiguation and of course will be dealt with by respective hatnotes. Red Slash 00:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
User:Red Slash so you want to replace the pianist who gets 300 GBook hits with the cable CEO who gets 40. Why? Noel Lee (executive) is evidently not WP:PRIMARYTOPIC by long arm, so why are you proposing that he be made WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not asserting primary topic for the CEO (though I think it'd be a shoo-in based on general overall impact on the word.-- one piano player can't stand up to someone who revolutionized/pioneered an entire industry). I think this can work as WP:NATURAL disambiguation. Red Slash 03:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose the pianist is American, for which, Americans frequently drop accents, because Americans frequently drop accents on everything. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 04:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment to help people determine the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (if any), the viewing figures for Monster's Noel Lee in October 2014 were 1794. For the pianist Noël Lee they were 286. Readers were six times more likely to want the executive than the pianist. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Instead, make Noel Lee, which has no significant incoming links, a disambiguation page and place hatnotes on both persons' articles. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Most English-speakers are not necessarily going to type the diacritic, and it's not an adequate disambiguator. Zarcadia (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

More comprehensive

@User:Ritchie333 How's this for a more comprehensive page? I culled through all twelve sources for additional content and did a quick Google News search to see that the acquisition of Beats Electronics by Apple led to some new sources since Beats got its start with Monster. I wasn't sure originally, but I think there is plenty of source material available to reach the GA-level of comprehensiveness. CorporateM (Talk) 02:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

That's looking better. I think when we're finally done we should have a few extra hundred words on the article, having mined all the sources. I find it's always better to add whatever you can from sources, because if in a GA review, somebody says "that's not focused", it's easy to trim or copyedit it, whereas to add additional content from sources is always harder. It's for this reason that I haven't nominated Barmouth Bridge for a GA review as there are gaps in the history that I think ought to be filled from sources somewhere.
Anyway, I have no COI on this article at all so I'm happy to add from the sandbox whatever I think is appropriate. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
@User:Ritchie333 I've cleaned up the annotations to make it copy/pasteable. That'll bring it from 1,000 words (not including references) to 1,500. To be honest about the "when we're done" comment, I don't think there is anything else to add (it's possible you'll prove me wrong, as I am on the deletionist side of things, but I always expected it to be a fairly small article). The revised draft should also address some of the sourcing issues brought up during the review, where the wrong citation was used to support a specific item (I took out the married at 18, because I couldn't find a source for that one). Please feel free to merge the expanded draft into article-space. I'll wait a bit before re-nominating to see if you have any additional input/edits and the article appears at least somewhat stable. CorporateM (Talk) 16:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I've merged what I think needs merging and we now stand at 1,350 characters. Exactly what I was hoping for. Let's wait for the RM to finish, see if there's anything else to add, copy edit everything, have a look for any relevant images, fix the lone [citation needed] tag, then we'll be good for GA2. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Sunworks

Noel, are you the Noel Lee that I knew at Sunworks Solar? This is Rick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.184.175.254 (talk) 02:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Noel Lee (executive)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 22:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


Per the note on your page, I'll go ahead and review this. I have a couple reviews I'm wrapping up currently but I should get to this in a couple days. Wizardman 22:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually I got nearly caught up already, so here it is. Here's the issues I found:

  • "he founded Monster Cable Products in 1979 based on loudspeaker cable" wouldn't it be loudspeaker cables? I guess it could technically be either depending on how the sentence is meant to be interpreted.
 Done CorporateM (Talk) 00:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "His father worked for China's Central News Agency and he had four sisters." Did he or his father have the four sisters? As worded it's confusing.
 Done CorporateM (Talk) 00:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Lee's parents moved to San Francisco from China after the Chinese Communist Revolution in 1949" He was both in 48 yet they moved to his birthplace in 49? I feel like I'm either missing something here or the year is a bit off (based on /GA1 my guess is this is just residue from finding a birthdate, so a rewording should be fine.)
The source just says "fled China as the Communist Party seized power". user:Ritchie333, I think this was your edit and he may have more context. CorporateM (Talk) 00:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "stranded in Hawaii, until they could earn " rm comma
 Done CorporateM (Talk) 00:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Link cottage industry.
 Done CorporateM (Talk) 00:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The part about sales training confuses me a bit; was the bundling being pushed from Monster itself or the retailers? The first paragraph in establishment, namely the sentence "This was primarily due to training sales staff at electronics stores to bundle the cables with other electronics purchases, an effort the company spent 15 percent of its revenues on by 1998." reads like Monster was providing the salespeople to the retailers. I'm sure that's not right, but I'm not sure what exactly that sentence is trying to say.
Monster provides training to the retailer's salespeople. The retailer welcomes such training, because of the profit margins. CorporateM (Talk) 00:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 Done is that clearer? One thing I noticed is that the criticisms of that business model are not included; these criticisms are a pretty big deal on the Monster page and deserve a mention. CorporateM (Talk) 00:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh nevermind - it's in the prior section "This led to criticisms that his business model creates aggressive salespeople" Just waiting to see if Richie has any comments on the Russia item. CorporateM (Talk) 00:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Article seems good for the most part. I'll put it on hold and pass when the issues are fixed. Wizardman 00:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: the salespeople, that makes sense; that's something that strikes me as pretty rare so I didn't expect that to be the case. Now just waiting on the one edit noted above. Wizardman 00:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Meh, I just changed it here to something closer to what the source says. Presumably it was referring to the communist revolution, but the source says "as" as oppose to "after", but even then it sounds like it was actually something more along the lines of "just before" technically, so I just put "around the same time" as it's approximately the same time. CorporateM (Talk) 01:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
That works for me. Everything else checks out, so I'll pass the article. Wizardman 01:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks like I missed the review - I didn't get any pings here, but I did get the one on CorporateM's talk. I guess the birth date issue was resolved? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie. I pinged you above regarding the discussion about this phrase: "after the Chinese Communist Revolution in 1949". Since he was born in the US in December 1948, his parents must have moved just before (rather than after) the1949 event. However, I just put something along the lines of "around the same time" based on what the source says. CorporateM (Talk) 15:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh yes, he was born in December 1948, not 1949. D'uuuh. I didn't get the ping as recently discussed on WP:VPT. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Noel_Lee_(executive)/Archives/2015&oldid=1164858507"