Talk:Bob Muglia/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: LavaBaron (talk · contribs) 18:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well-written?

No comma between "before" and "Microsoft" in lede.

Done CorporateM (Talk) 23:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muglia's father presumably was not employed by something called "automotive parts." This sentence should read "His father was an automotive parts salesman."

Done CorporateM (Talk) 23:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please rewrite this - He moved to Michigan, where Muglia earned an undergraduate degree from the University of Michigan in 1981. - thusly: He moved to Michigan and earned an undergraduate degree from the University of Michigan in 1981. \

Done CorporateM (Talk) 23:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need to preface Muglia's fitness regime with "according to Network World" since the captioned source is, in fact, Network World which is RS. I'm sure we could just say Muglia has been known for participating in a demanding fitness program. or something like that.

Done CorporateM (Talk) 23:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No comma between "tools" and "before."

Done CorporateM (Talk) 23:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. Verifiable and no OR?

I could not find a reference that Muglia was born in 1959. The source is dated January 2009 and reports he is 49 years old at that date, however, that could mean he was also born in 1960. LMK if there's a secondary source I missed.

There is unfortunately no source that confirms his birthdate, but WP:CALC does allow us to do the math. (plus I asked his handler to verify) We can trim if you feel strongly about the source not being clear as to whether it was 1959 or 1960. CorporateM (Talk) 23:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, close enough, CorporateM. LavaBaron (talk) 03:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two very incidental pieces of information are sourced to RS book which, in turn, sources them to a (court case). I checked the transcript of said case in PACER and these appear linked to testimony given by Muglia himself. Normally this would need to, therefore, be qualified as "according to Muglia," however, the information in question is so very incidental that, when combined with the fact that they were given under oath, I'm satisfied these can be presented as statements of fact. (No changes need to be made, I'm just noting this for posterity.)
The article says "the judge embarrassed him" ... one of the two sources cited does not use the word "embarrassed" (or any variation thereof) and does not otherwise attempt to divine Muglia's emotional state during testimony. The second source makes such an incidental reference to this that I feel inclusion in this article is WP:UNDUE. Please strike everything from "according" through "Gates."

The book cited says "But capping a several-months-long string of embarrassments on the witness stand, Microsoft's final regular witness was also humiliated" (referring to Muglia). I think embarrassed is synonymous with humiliated. CorporateM (Talk) 23:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While that may be true, an incident occupying the span of one day in the life of a 65 year-old man needs broad coverage for inclusion or risk being WP:UNDUE. The trap here is that you're trying to pepper this bio with "obligatory scandal" to eliminate the appearance of NPOV due to your COI. Inclusion of this wouldn't pass muster with a non-COI editor. I think it either needs to be removed, or it needs to be shown that Muglia's embarrassment or humiliation received wider coverage than a single sentence in one book. LavaBaron (talk) 03:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is quite a substantial body of source material about his testimony.[1][2][3][4] Probably United States v. Microsoft Corp. is the better place to cover it in-depth, but I think it warrants at least being mentioned here. The other sources have a similar tone of focusing on the judge snapping at him. CorporateM (Talk) 04:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With these additional sources I'm satisfied this is not UNDUE. The article is passed. LavaBaron (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3. Broad?

I've reviewed the online archives of Computer World (which covers the industry in which Muglia works), the Seattle Times (the general circulation newspaper covering the area where Muglia lives), and conducted a general search for Muglia's name in Google Books and Google News, and found nothing that would indicate anything substantial has been omitted from the article. The article seems as broad as WP:SUMMARY demands.

4. Neutral?

While a good essay suggests "Further Reading" should be limited to the topic of an article itself, and the further reading sources seem to be interviews with Muglia about his businesses and not himself, this is only a recommendation and certainly not a bright line that would permit me to rule against it for GA status.
As per the opinion of the original GA reviewer, Esquivalience, article is NPOV.

5. Stable?

In the preceding 60 days there have been three minor edits, one of which was to simply add a CAT.

6. Images?

More would be better, but I'm satisfied the headshot is the extent of what is realistically possible.