Wikipedia

Talk:Beck v. Eiland-Hall/GA1

< Talk:Beck v. Eiland-Hall
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Cirt in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago28 comments2 people in discussion

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

I'll be conducting this review. The subject matter fascinates me and I can't wait to run through this article. I've only just started reading, but I'll leave you a bit right off the bat. Despite my somewhat lengthy questions at the start here, don't be discouraged. At a glance, this seems like a well-written, impeccably sourced and comprehensive article, and I'm sure it will pass after a relatively painless review! — Hunter Kahn (c) 06:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Background:

  • I think there needs to be a more clear description of what exactly the Internet discussions were. The first sentence of this section indicates that an Internet discussion began applying Gottfried's joke to Beck, then we get into some history of Gottfried's joke, and then you jump right into who was responsible for spreading the meme. Somewhere between the history of the joke and the spreading of the meme, we need a more clear description of how exactly the joke was applied to Beck. It's clear in the lede, but we have to make it just as clear in the body of the article. Perhaps this can be done by moving the sentence that srats"The internet posters contrasted the meme with Beck's style of arguing..." up in the paragraph a bit? But even after you do that, I'd suggest you expand it somewhat. What exactly were these Internet chatters saying, and how were they applying it to Beck?
  • Also, I think it would be helpful if we could include some examples of how Beck applies this type of logic in his interviews? For example, this site compares the jokes to Beck's line of questioning in his interview with Rep. Keith Ellison. Were any such specific examples like this quoted in the Internet discussions?
    • Note on the above two comments I see now that you get into the Ellison example in some of the sections below. I think that's OK, but I think you still need to add at least some bit of explanation about how the joke applies to Beck's questioning style... — Hunter Kahn (c) 18:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • In the extended quote at the end of the second paragraph, could you move the attribution to the beginning of the quote? Something like, "Eiland-Hall wrote on the website:" at the start, rather than the end? Maybe it's just a matter of preference, but I don't like really long quotes without attribution in the middle or beginning because it takes the reader too long to find out who is saying the statement, you know what I mean?
  • I never visited this site when it was up, so I don't know exactly how it looked, and I think this paragraph should more clearly state that. (For example, Was there simply a text statement that Beck raped and murdered a girl? Was it in huge text with explanation points? Or was the statement presented only in the domain name itself?) Could you maybe include a description of the site in this paragraph that would straighten me out on this?
  • Do we know how old Eiland-Hall was when he made the site? If so, could you drop it in here?
  • In the third paragraph, this clause "in a criticism of Beck for sometimes challenging those he opposes to prove a negative" is attached to another sentence following a semicolon. It reads like a sentence fragment and doesn't flow well. Could you break it into its own sentence and reword it slightly?

More to come... — Hunter Kahn (c) 06:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Comment: Thank you for doing the review. I will begin to address above, and note it here as I do so. Cirt (talk) 06:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

More: WIPO complaint:

  • Maybe this is just my preference, but I think WIPO and UDRP should be identified by their full names in the first reference here. I know you already identify them in the lead, but I think the first reference in the body of the article itself should also have it, and then all subsequent references should be abbreviated. What do you think?
  • "On 'cups, ice buckets, mugs, non-metal piggy banks, ceramic and porcelain holiday ornaments'." I don't think this needs to be quoted. In fact, I think you use brief quote clauses like this too often. I'm not going to nitpick too much for a GAN review, but you may want to consider going through and changing some of them to article prose.
  • "When I received the news of the domain dispute, I was a little surprised that Beck, of all people—after making such a big deal about how international bodies should never be able to trump the U.S. Constitution—would take this to an international organization. But as I felt confident I would win, I wasn't too worried about it." This quote is too long. Can you break some of it into the prose of the article and just keep the most important part of the actual quote?

Eiland-Hall response:

  • "except to 'A moron in a hurry'" Can you put a comma at the end of this sentence and then briefly describe that this is an actual legal term? I didn't know this until I saw the link.
  • "It is specious at best for Mr. Beck to assert that his fans, or the public as a whole, would confuse Respondent’s website with Mr. Beck himself—unless of course it is Mr. Beck’s view that his fans and the average internet user are in fact hurried morons. Respondent presumes that this is not how Mr. Beck regards his audience. And, even if he does so regard his audience, this is not a basis for upholding his complaint." This quote, also, is too long, especially since a lot of it is already identified in the prose that preceded it. Can you rework it a bit?

More to come! — Hunter Kahn (c) 18:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC) Beck supplemental filing and Eiland-Hall surreply:Reply

  • I would strongly suggest you merge these two together under a single new name. The "Beck supplemental filing" subsection in particular is very short..
  • This article tends to make use of a lot of long quotes, especially in these sections. More than half of both of these sections are really just long quotes, which I don't think is particularly encyclopedic. (Maybe it's just because I'm a reporter, and in that career the overuse of long quotes is considered lazy and ineffective writing). I think you could easily paraphrase most of this and only use quotes for something particularly quotable or interesting. Could you take a crack at this?

WIPO ruling:

  • Again, this section includes a few huge quotes, including the one that starts with "Respondent appears to the Panel...", "It bears observing..." and "It also bears noting..." Could you take a look at those and consider whether they can be paraphrased a bit?
  • I'm open to your thoughts on this, but I'm wondering if the part where Eiland-Hall explains the rationale for giving up the domain (in the paragraph that starts with "It bears observing") should be moved up to the paragraph beforehand, in which its stated that he turned the site over to Beck? Or maybe that info should be moved down to where the rationale currently is? As it stands, the article says "He gave up the site", then goes into stuff in the letter to Beck, then goes into the rationale for why he gave up the site. It reads like A-B-A, instead of A-B...
  • I'm not sure if this was in any of your sources, but out of curiosity, did Beck have any appeal options for the WIPO's ruling (if Eiland-Hall hadn't voluntarily turned the site over, that is)? Or were there other, non-WIPO avenues he could have gone to continue fighting the site? If there are, I'd like to see what those options could have been added to this section? Also, on a related note, do any of your sources indicate Eiland-Hall turning over the site might have been an attempt to avoid any such appeal or continued fight like that? If so, we should add that too...

Commentary:

  • "Commentators analyzed Beck's actions with respect to the "Streisand effect"..." This might seem obvious to you and me, but could you add just a brief bit to the end of this sentence explaining exactly what the "Streisand effect" is, in case the reader isn't familiar with it?
  • This section also has lots of quotes. But since the section specifically about commentary to the case, I'm not going to hold up the GAN over it. Nevertheless, I'd encourage you to take another gander through this section and consider whether any of them can be paraphrased...

I still have to glance through the sources, but after a readthrough these are my only objections. I'm sure you'll be able to address them, and this article will be promoted to GA before long. Nice work, it's a really, really cool article and a fun read! — Hunter Kahn (c) 00:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, glad to know the above is all. :P I will begin to work on it soon. Cirt (talk) 00:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Sorry about that, will get to this soon. Cirt (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
Background
  1. Directly took this suggestion, by moving the sentence up a bit, as recommended by the GA Reviewer. Cirt (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
  2. I think it is okay to get into more detail later, as the article presently does. I don't think specific examples like this were quoted in the Internet discussions. Cirt (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
  3. In the extended quote at the end of the second paragraph ... =   Done, per recommendation from GA Reviewer. Cirt (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
  4. I have not come across that sort of detailed description in sources of how the site looked from that time period. Cirt (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
  5.   Done, added age at the time of the incident to the article, as recommended by the GA Reviewer. Cirt (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
  6. In the third paragraph ... =   Done, reworked this into two sentences, as recommended by the GA Reviewer. Cirt (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
WIPO complaint
  1.   Done = WIPO and UDRP are now identified by their full names in the first reference - as recommended by the GA Reviewer. Cirt (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
  2.   Done, paraphrased this bit instead of quoting it. Cirt (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
  3.   Done = trimmed this quote down to a shorter length - as recommended by the GA Reviewer. Cirt (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
Eiland-Hall response
  1. Added comma, added description of term and source, as recommended by the GA Reviewer. Cirt (talk) 00:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
  2. Actually, I think this quote is appropriate here and highly relevant as it was reported on in sources. Cirt (talk) 00:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
  3.   Done, merged the two sections together, as recommended by the GA Reviewer. Cirt (talk) 00:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
  4. I really like the way the quotes are organized, it give the direct words of the parties to the dispute - and I think direct attribution like this makes sense, especially as it is a controversial topic and legal case. Cirt (talk) 00:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
WIPO ruling
  1. I really think these quotes are relevant, and that it reads best from the words of the parties themselves here. Cirt (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
  2.   Done, merged paragraphs together into one paragraph, as recommended by the GA Reviewer. Cirt (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
  3. I do not know if Beck had appeal options, this was not discussed in any sources that reported on this. He could have sued in a court in the USA for a different complaint than trademark and copyright, such as libel and defemation. Beck did not. He chose instead to make a legal case outside of the USA. Cirt (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
Commentary
  1.   Done, added a bit more about "Streisand effect", with source, as recommended by the GA Reviewer. Cirt (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
  2. I will take another look through it, had previously done some copyediting on it, but I think the quotes work quite well here. Cirt (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

A good article is:

  1. Well-written: Prose is good, MOS is good.
  2. Factually accurate and verifiable: Sources are good, no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage: Covers main aspects, no unneeded detail.
  4. Neutral: Yes.
  5. Stable: Yes.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by images: Yes.

I'm still not crazy about all the long quotes, but that's not enough to hold this GAN up. Nice work, this is one of the most fun articles I've read. That's a pass! — Hunter Kahn 01:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Cirt (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beck_v._Eiland-Hall/GA1&oldid=1136318917"