# Talk:Gilberto García Mena

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gilberto García Mena/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 22:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


### Criteria
Style - Just passes - the issues (see comments) are to the article's detriment but on balance do not rule out being a GA, though I would be more comfortable promoting it with some tweaks
Verifiability - Passes - everything cited inline, though sometimes inline is just one footnote at the end of a paragraph
Coverage - Current fail (see comments)
Neutrality - Passes - from a first reading, this is completely neutral in tone, with not even weasel words!
Stability - Passes - no large edits since July, main editor is MX.
Illustration - for such a lengthy article, there should ideally be more than just the infobox picture. Fails
Copyright - clear


### Lead
Well written, good coverage of a suitable depth for the subject and good length for article. Good progression through the lead. Info cited in article body. Passes all.


### Early life and career
Also very well written, though is it not possible to combine the first two sentences so it reads slightly better? Also on style, is it possible to break it up a bit, as the section could be more coherent if it, e.g. had a subsection "Early arrests" from the second paragraph down - there is much more detail of his life and arrests in this part so it melds better as distanced from the more detached narrative of his first drug runs. just passes style
Covers all important aspects in good depth. Everything is cited, though the long third paragraph only has one footnote, right at the end. Even with all the info in one source, it may be worth including footnotes next to statements that may be questioned (but not necessary). Passes verify+coverage+stability+neutrality


### Leadership
Before reviewing this section, I need some clarification: paragraph 2 sounds like Cárdenas is a leader within the Gulf Cartel and takes over in 1998 after unrest because the last guy got arrested. But paragraph 3 seems to be a complete retelling from the same point, with Cárdenas a police officer that García Mena just gets to know and then holds control over to enable his trade, with no relationship to cartel leadership. They don't go together. So this section would be a fail for now.

Clarification and edit provided, pass


### Influence and downfall
Is this appropriate as a subsection of Leadership? His influence over local officials doesn't seem dependent on being a leader, and his downfall certainly isn't. Perhaps better as a separate section.
Footnote 'd' also needs some clarification. I think I understand it, but it took some thinking (that Cárdenas hired the bodyguards that García Mena didn't have at arrest, so they were now up for hire again?)
Is the sentence "Investigators believe that García Mena was allowed to conduct drug-trafficking activities with relative impunity by the corrupt officers." really necessary, since it states basically the same thing as the first sentence. In any case, since no officers have been mentioned since the first sentence, this should be moved to there, otherwise it seems randomly dumped in the paragraph.
Current sentences 2 and 3 could be made into one.
Some of these footnotes (e and f specifically) could just be... prose. They provide a lot of detail that is relevant to the subject.
Last two sentences of paragraph 1 could be connected.
The other two paragraphs seem to have no issues, except the very last sentence. Who is the "him" that García Mena cut ties with (it's already been explained why he cut ties with López Salinas, so if he's the "him", it should be removed: the info shouldn't be restated because it's confusing). And, who is the "who" reaching out to authorities? Because I read it to be "Cárdenas Guillén's forces" doing that, which doesn't seem right; is it López Falcón, and if so, can it be a new sentence that names him because clearly this can also be confusing.
Fails style
Passes verify+coverage+stability+neutrality
Good quality edits made, passes style


### Manhunt & Re-arrest & reactions
This jumps right in. Perhaps a short introductory paragraph could be useful - this may be the case for the other sections, too, or it reads like one long, disjointed, story.
Made a few edits for style but otherwise mostly good on that front. Subsection (including how it starts) is cohesive.
The last paragraph of government reactions seems only tangentially related to the subject; it is about raids and says "García Mena's house was not raided". Perhaps not needed?
Otherwise good, just passes style+coverage, passes verify+stability+neutrality


### Imprisonment
Nothing seems out of place, so good coverage, and well written but again has one-footnote paragraphs.
Passes all


### Trial subsections
"García Mena said at his hearing that his nickname was "El Yune", not "El June" (as the media had called him)" good information, but it's not so much relevant to the trial, even though it happened there. It would fit better up with the info on when Cárdenas gave him the nickname, saying that even with the nickname's etymology, "years later at his hearing on X, García Mena..."
Otherwise, the style and coverage is consistent with the rest of the article. Passes all


### Convictions & release
Consistent with the rest of the article, all claims cited.
Neutral, but to a point that the fourth paragraph's court information is written so plainly it could be mistaken as being a re-write of the paragraph above - I thought I'd accidentally started reading the same paragraph. Perhaps a little more creativity but maintaining neutrality (I'm sorry, this seems like advice to roll one's eyes at, but I can't think of a better way to suggest such a style tweak)
Passes all


### Overall
Well-written and researched article with lots of effort put in and a consistent, good, style; but when read in-depth there are just some things that are very unclear. Normally a bit of wobble can be dismissed at GA, but it's multiple instances and quite badly confusing, so much that multiple paragraphs don't seem to fit. These should be fixed. There are also a few coverage-related blips. And, as said, regarding the "Leadership" section, I would like some information before reviewing that because it seems very confusing, contradictory in information and message, and I'm unable to decipher what it even could be meant to be. Kingsif (talk) 23:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

 On hold
 I want to thank @MX: for the good work (if you have more edits, keep them coming - nice article that you can only make better!) and quickly resolving everything to now make this a Good Article. Kingsif (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@Kingsif: Thank you for the thorough review! I hope to find some images. I have access to the print newspapers of the time and there are a bunch of pictures of El June's mansion, the raids, and the detainees. But they are not under free domain so I can't add them. I'll re-read the review again and take more looks at the article from time to time. Regards, MX (✉ • ✎) 17:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)