Wikipedia:Peer review/SLAPP Suits/archive2

SLAPP Suits

Previous peer review

Hi there! Wondering what to do next with this article; my goal is a potential FA.

Many thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 18:06, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments from DanCherek

Thanks for your work on this article. Here are some comments specifically focusing on sourcing and source-text integrity. Happy to take another look at the prose, which I have not commented on here, once you feel like the below comments have been addressed.

Extended comments on sourcing

Sourcing the entire first paragraph of "Coal" to the video itself is non-ideal; is there secondary sourcing that can be used to support the material? Sourced! I don't see the "any efforts to [...] injure Mr. Murray" quote in either of the cited AV Club or Time sources Cited to the Washington Post "When Murray introduced [...] from a talking squirrel." These three sentences largely don't seem to be supported by the cited AV Club source Cited to Reuters and the Washington Post Noel McNeal, "three acorns and eighteen cents", and "Eat Shit, Bob!" is not mentioned in the cited sources Trimmed and cited to Slate "Marshall County Coal Company" is not mentioned in the cited Variety source, which also does not mention that HBO was also sued, Recited to Quartz and The Daily Beast Lawsuit quote is slightly misquoted – missing an "of" Fixed! Sourcing the description of the lawsuit to the court document itself is non-ideal; is there secondary sourcing that can be used to support the material? In the process of reciting... Trimmed :l Time source says that only four justices on the WV Supreme Court were impeached, and does not seem to support "Oliver later remarked that this was a relief" or "The Gavel" Clarified! I don't see the "threaten[s] the fundamental right of the media to criticize public figures and speak candidly on matters of public concern" quote in the cited Vanity Fair source Recited to The Mary Sue Sourcing the description of the amicus brief to the court document itself is non-ideal; is there secondary sourcing that can be used to support the material? Recited and trimmed "The response criticized the tone of the ACLU's submission" This sentence does'nt seem to be supported by the cited Reuters source Cut "promoted his lawsuit on Fox Business" does not seem to be supported by the cited Time source Recited to The A. V. Club "his libel insurance tripled" – per source, it was the show's insurance, not Oliver's insurance. Also, "over $200,000" per source, rather than just $200,000 Fixed! Details of the kidney stone story (which is disgusting, by the way) are not supported by the cited Harvard Crimson or AV Club sources From The A. V. Club's "John Oliver gloriously demonstrates why rich assholes really shouldn’t sue John Oliver": Noting how Murray’s habit of swamping critics with frivolous lawsuits has, for example, seen virtually no coverage of the two lawsuits against Murray for workplace sexual harassment and misconduct (including one incident allegedly involving one of his passed kidney stones, because if you’re going to be evil, you might as well pull some out of your dick)... Yes, I meant the detail about the female employee being asked to get on her hands and knees and find it. DanCherek (talk) 05:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC) Ah, gotcha. Will trim... Cited to the episode instead—the A. V. Club is enough of a secondary source to say the thing happened, I think we can use PLOTSOURCE for the rest? 06:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC) "getting very tired of this" quote is not in the cited Guardian source, nor does it mention Judge Jeffery D. Cramer Recited to the Los Angeles Times The Hollywood Reporter source does not mention his middle finger Recited to the Los Angeles Times "Suck My Balls, Bob" dancers are not mentioned in the cited Harvard Crimson or AV Club sources, nor are any of the mentioned outlandish acts I'd like to keep the acts, I'm going to put them under WP:PLOTSOURCE. Will that not work for an FA? " Oliver centered parts [...] bestiality with squirrels." These two sentences largely don't seem to be supported by the given Vulture source Trimmed Sentence about Brian d'Arcy James – the only part of that sentence supported by the cited AV Club source was that James appeared in the song Trimmed "may have picked too big a fish" does not appear to be in the cited Mary Sue source Trimmed

• Potential source: [1]
  • @DanCherek: thanks so much! I'm (well, almost) satisfied that I got pretty much all of your concerns, and I added the suggested source (thank you)! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 06:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
    • You're welcome. I'm a big believer in WP:PLOTSOURCE, having just promoted a book FA with a lengthy "unsourced" plot section. My thoughts here are that your descriptions of the segments are mostly summarized from reliable sources except for these little tidbits that you're leaning on PLOTSOURCE and so it's not clear from a WP:WEIGHT standpoint why these little details merit inclusion if they haven't been covered in reliable sources. For the musical segment acts, for example, there's a decent list that could be compiled based on [2][3][4]. I do want to emphasize that these are just my thoughts, not a make-or-break thing, and I think the overall quality of the article is commendable. Feel free to disregard the comments if you don't think they would be an improve and/or to seek additional opinions. DanCherek (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
      • Hmm, true... I'll fix that up tomorrow. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 08:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

        @DanCherek: I think we're good on that! any comments on the prose, scope, etc.? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 06:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

        Yes, I'll try to leave some more comments soon. DanCherek (talk) 02:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

More comments

Reviewing this version; no spotchecks.

• Recommend linking news satire
• "as well as" → "and" (2 instances)
• Recommend "titled" instead of "entitled" (6 instances)
• "his lawsuit, which was lauded by critics": this is confusing about whether critics lauded the segment or the lawsuit
• "Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Original Music and Lyrics" – a single combined link to Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Original Music and Lyrics is fine (2 instances)
• "2016 campaign" is piped to 2016 United States presidential election; suggest piping "his 2016 campaign" to Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign instead
• "who has repeatedly criticized": either change "has" to "had" or remove the word altogether
• "they received a letter informing them that they": too many mixed theys/thems, clarify who received the letter
• It gets pretty confusing when you write "Murray" and it's hard to tell whether you're talking about the person or the company, so I suggest using Murray Energy's full name for the latter
• "Chief Justice" should be in lowercase per MOS
• Watch out for MOS:LQ throughout the article
• "dropped a short while later" is there sourcing that allows you to be more specific about this timing?
  • Not as far as i know.
• The image of John Oliver is a bit large, consider using |upright to scale it down a bit
• Do a ctrl+F for "argued", there are a few times when it's used in relatively quick succession and a bit repetitive
• I recommend adding alt text to all images for accessibility
• In the paragraph about the law paper and textbook, I'd try to focus on what they say about the episode, rather than Murray's lawsuit
  • The article kind of covers the whole saga, I don't think it's too off-topic
• "The number lost the category, however, to": remove "however"
• Ref #2 is missing access date
• Be consistent about whether you are providing ISSN or not
• Link Reuters in ref #5 (and un-italicize it)
• Refs #12, #14, #17 are missing date of publication
• Ref #29: citing an entire 650-page book isn't too helpful, provide page number(s)
  • The book doesn't have page numbers on google books—

Left some comments, but done for the most part! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theleekycauldron (talk • contribs)

• DanCherek, if I went to FA at this point, do you think it'd be rejected out of hand or would there be room to perfect it based on users' comments? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 19:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think it would be rejected out of hand. I think it's in pretty good shape, though I'll say that with my usual disclaimer that I am far less experienced in FAC matters than people from this list (including Gerda!). You may want to ask for one more set of eyes to give the article a quick look. Just make sure your sourcing is airtight and I also recommend reviewing some FACs – it's not a QPQ system (and shouldn't be), but it'll help you get familiar with the criteria and what other will be looking for in your own nomination. Good luck! DanCherek (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

  Fair enough, thanks! Gerda's been giving me the slip for a month or so, but hopefully we get a mostly all-clear :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 20:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

And Gerda Arendt, what do you think? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 19:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to close this now—once again, DanCherek, thank you so much for all the help :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 06:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)