Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SLAPP Suits/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 23 January 2022 [1].

SLAPP Suits

edit
Nominator(s): theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 06:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article details the story of the penultimate episode of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver's sixth season, and the lead-up saga including a segment two years prior, a lawsuit, an amicus brief that must have had them rolling in the courthouse pews, and something known as the "Suck My Balls, Bob" dancers. to be perfectly honest, I'm not sure either. I've put a lot of work into this article in the earlier parts of 2021, picking it up again in November and December—I think it's ready to be labelled as an FA, which would make it my first if passed. This is really exciting for me—any and all feedback is welcome (and I'm sure you've got lots) :) thank you all in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 06:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Place drive-by or one-shot comments here!

Image review passes in terms of licensing. Probably redundant, but no one formally checked haha! Good luck :) Sennecaster (Chat) 00:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much, Sennecaster! Definitely good to have someone give that tick :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 09:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Serial

edit

(Placeholder for full review)

This is fucking classic, I was forced to watch it again on principle and pished myself laughing. Great choice. A couple of points before we get forensic. The lead, while technically within the limits of MOS:LEADLENGTH, should be expanded (although whether comprising one longer para or two equal length paras is up to you); also, is it possible to provide more detail as to ACLU's "snarky, humorous tone"d brief? As you note, these are a rarity in the field, and fair use with attribution would certainly allow you fuller quotes (and even better if RS have discussed it discretely!).
Back tomorrow. Luck, ——Serial 07:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it's a fantastic episode :) my personal favourite. I'm happy to expand the lead; as for expanding the ACLU section, I'm already thinking it probably shouldn't be longer than the "lawsuit" section, so I'd like to hear some other voices on that. Can't wait to dig in! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 07:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial: lead expanded! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 23:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Serial, sorry to ping again—any other comments you want to leave? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 02:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from TheDoctorWho

edit
  • I suppose it isn't a huge issue but at a very first/quick glance I wasn't sure what the overall scope of the article was. The article uses an Infobox for a television episode and it's categorized as an episode but it appears to be solely about a segment within the episode? The information in the Infobox (writer, guest appearances), is that specific to the segment or the Infobox? I also know there's not an Infobox specifically for segments so I won't be the one to say it should be removed, but just wanted to bring it up.
  • It may be useful to link the next and last episode in the Infobox, with [[List of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver episodes#ep177|Election security in the United States]] or by creating a redirect, either works.
  • In the Coal section I would do the same type of link in the portion that says "on his show, titled "Coal"".
  • Later on in that paragraph I'd link the first use of Bob Murray. (MOS:DUPLINK)
  • Same with first mention of HBO in the lawsuit section.
  • It appears the episode was also nominated for Emmy awards in Outstanding Sound Mixing, Outstanding Technical Direction, Camerawork, and Video Control, Outstanding Production Design, Outstanding Directing. These only mention the episode itself and not necessarily the segment, with as notable as the segment seems though, I can't imagine anything else in the episode was responsible for the sound mixing nomination, etc. but that's technically SYNTH I guess. At the very least it may be worth it it to mention them in the episode section, even if it's just "The episode received 6 Emmy nominations.".
  • The writers listed in the Infobox can be added to reference 21.
  • You can also add This URL and an access date.
  • An external links section may be helpful. (IMDb link, Template:IMDb episode, as well as the HBO link from above)

TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pamzeis

edit

...I don't know how to start this, so, um, this is a placeholder. I probably will leave comments in a week... or maybe two? Pamzeis (talk) 11:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will try not to screw this up

  • Is there any reason the director(s) and writer(s) need to be referenced in the Infobox? I'd be under the impression that the segment's credits would render this unneeded
    • snip!
  • "criticized President Barack Obama for" — I've been contemplating whether this is accurate per MOS:PERSONOROFFICE as it seems Obama was not the president at the time. I think it should be "former President" but I'm definitely uncertain.
    • Most of the criticism came during his tenure, so I've added that clause in.
  • Is the second paragraph (of #Coal) describing what happens in the segment "Coal"? I find it rather unclear whether it is/does
    • It does, I've clarified that
  • "coal miners, the miners were" — saying miners in such quick succession does sit well with me...
    • Changed the second to "they"
  • "part of Murray Energy.[9] Murray Energy" — ditto but Murray Energy instead of miners
    • Changed to "The comapny"
  • "dropped a short while later" — can the time be more specific? A "short while" is extremely vague
    • No, none of the sources i could find specified when the lawsuit was dropped. I did put in that it was around the time that Murray Energy was filing for bankruptcy
  • "which was noted for its" — by whom?
    • added stuff there
  • Also, I think the use of noted is WP:VOICE since the "snarky, humo[u]rous tone" seems more like an opinion while noted implies facts
    • I mean, it was noted for its snarky, humourous tone—it seems like the consensus of reliable sources to me
  • In the first paragraph of #Amicus curiae from the ACLU, all the sentences begin with the, making it monotonous
    • fixed
  • "The response criticized ... The response also" — these two sentences both begin with "The (response)", making them kinda monotonous
    • fixed
  • "The response also alleged a financial connection, in that on a segment of Last Week Tonight titled "President-Elect Trump", aired five days after the 2016 presidential election, Oliver encouraged viewers to donate to causes perceived as left-leaning such as Planned Parenthood, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the Trevor Project, the Center for Reproductive Rights, or the International Refugee Assistance Project. Murray Energy argued that this encouragement caused an "immediate surge of millions of dollars in donations to the ACLU", although Reuters contended that Murray Energy did not provide suitable evidence for this claim, in that they provided hyperlinks to three articles that did not explicitly support this argument, instead attributing the rise in donations to the result of the presidential election in general." — I find these sentences very hard to read. Can they be split up or simplified?
    • I broke it up into more sentences
  • "titled "SLAPP Suits". SLAPP" — repetition of SLAPP
    • Honestly, I think that's fine?
  • "He further pointed ... He further stated" — kinda monotonous
    • Fixed
  • "not be fortunate enough to be backed by a large company like HBO and have libel insurance" — it's kinda unclear whether they have or don't insurance
    • Clarified :)
  • "against Murray, one of which involved Murray asking a ... that Murray had" — there are three instances or Murray in this sentence. Can this be reduced?
    • Yep!
  • "He then introduced the "Suck My Balls, Bob" dancers,[24] who moved the setting to Times Square as they recounted fictional anecdotes of Murray committing outlandish and horrifying acts, joking that he perpetrated the 1994 Cobo Arena attack on Nancy Kerrigan, spat on the face of the Mona Lisa, shot puppies into outer space, supplied drugs to Bill Cosby, served as Jeffrey Epstein's prison guard, murdered Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and started World War I, and was the unidentified Zodiac Killer." — This sentence is extremely long and I find it rather hard to follow. Can it be split?
    • Broke that up into two
  • "agreed that Murray's SLAPP suits create a 'culture of fear'" — this kinda makes it sound like the source is agreeing with a fact (which it is not)
    • Agreed with oliver, my bad
  • "of the musical number generally" — ...just the musical number?
    • oops! fixed that
  • This article's citation capitalisation is inconsistent: some are written in sentence-case while other title-case. Can this be consistent?
    • firmly in the sentence-case camp.

Hope this helps. I've also made a few minor tweaks; feel free to revert anything you disagree with. Pamzeis (talk) 14:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AryKun

edit

Oh, man, this is awesome, will review soon. AryKun (talk) 13:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not required, but perhaps you'd like to drop by at the FAC for Mini scule?

Comments and support from Gerda

edit

Invited long ago, I finally have some free time. Will comment as I read but skip the lead, to look at it after I know what we talk about. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox looks fine to me, but the titles in the TOC tell someone who has no idea little. "Coal" - so what? "Musical number" - context??

Coal

  • The picture caption for Murray has much information that is not pictured, and comes later in the body. I suggest to trim it to saying who is pictured and why.
    • Checkarooni!
  • "the episode" - at that time, I didn't know which episode, - perhaps the connection should be be detailed in the episode section, and only be mentioned here briefly.
    • Check republic :D

Amicus ...

  • I'd pipe The Trevor Project, for less blue.
    • Check-ered flannels! (i happen to love flannels)

Episode

  • I think the creators of the episode, who appear in the infobox, should also be mentioned in the prose, especially as some of the award nominations are for some of what they did.
    • I mentioned the directors in the Emmy Awards paragraph; anything else you want to see there?
  • The explanation of SLAPP should come sooner.
    • Shuffled the segment around a bit.

Musical number

  • I'd begin the first sentence with the second half about the five minutes, and only then come with the detail of the check writing.
  • Mr. Nutterbutter - I had forgotten who that was, - maybe that's just me.
    • I think I'm going to leave that one as is for now?
  • wl barbershop?
    • linked

Thank you for the article, a pleasure to read. Please write a bit more lead for readers like me wo don't know anything about U.S. television ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, gerda! I think I got 'em all :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 23:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
tlc, thank you for action, explaining and teaching vocabulary in your replies ;) - The lead is much better!

infobox

  • now that I understand it's only a segment, some ideas:
    • above the pic, say "segment of episode so-and-so", with a close link to that specific episode, which should also be present in lead and article
      • I don't think this is technically feasible, given the template—there's no way to change Last Week Tonight episode to Last Week Tonight episode segment, as far as I can tell. And while this is technically only a segment, it also spanned ~90% of the episode's length and is the only thing that any reliable source remembers. It's basically the episode, it's just that everything on a variety talk show (at least in the United States) has other segments floating around the edges. This is the main attraction, there's no article for the episode as a whole. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 08:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • drop the guests unless they have to do with the segment
    • actually drop all personnal not mentioned in this article

pic placement

  • while I like Oliver sooner, I think that now Murray comes too late, - better in law suit
    • Hmm, I disagree—the images of Murray and Oliver (and the infobox images) are the only three I've got. Putting them all as high up as possible leaves the bottom a little sparse—the article's mid-length, so I think it's okay to spread images of the key people throughout the article. I don't necessarily want to put too much voltage in the top and middle of the article, and leave the bottom with just the "external links" box. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 08:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • hmm, now I disagree - pics are there to illustrate, and for me, Murray comes too late. Perhaps GRuban could help to another pic of the actual performance? If not, placing Oliver in the infobox, Murray to the lawsuit and the ibox pic to the episode might work better, for me at least.
      • I forgot to ping GRuban. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

lead

  • mention the connection to the line on the checks, or the title of the musical number remains a mystery
    • Done :)

I have a travel day, + 2 DYK one day, so take your time and don't be surprised about no response. There was only reading no editing on the train ride coming, so I expect the same for the return --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

of course! no problem with no response, enjoy yourself; I do have some issues with these suggestions, so I've left those up above. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 08:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
for a change, the connection on the train is working! - I wonder if we should talk about my ignorance somewhere else. Are there articles on episodes? can you point me at one? or the other way round, could there be a redirect for the episode to this, as covering 90%?
anyway, although it's not yet final, it's already good enough for me to support, especially with a fine new lead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support by RunningTiger123

edit

I remember watching this segment when it was originally broadcast, and I quite enjoyed it. Having worked on a TV episode FA recently, I'll give this one a stab.

Lead and infobox:

  • Where do the directors and writers come from? The writers don't match what's listed at the end of the segment on YouTube or IMDb (though the latter is not an RS).
  • Similarly, where do the episode titles in the chronology come from? The next episode, for instance, is just called "The Census" at HBO's website.
    • Whoops! those come from the wikipedia episode listing article; someone should really fix that
  • "twenty ninth" → "twenty-ninth" (MOS:NUMERAL)
  • "Murray's other SLAPP Suits" → "Murray's other SLAPP suits"
  • "twenty six-minute" → "twenty-six-minute"
  • "were lauded by critics and was nominated" → "were lauded by critics and were nominated"
    • Done!

Background

  • Link to Bob Murray (businessman) is wrong
    • oops!
  • "Murray Energy has sued" → "Murray Energy had sued" (better verb tense)
  • "KISS MY ASS BOB" → "Kiss My Ass Bob" (MOS:CAPS discourages capitalization unless it is deliberate; the cited article uses lowercase, so it's probably just a person's writing style)
    • I put (all capitals) in parentheses next to that, but done
  • Expand text included in the wikilink to Impeachment of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia from "impeached" to "four of the five justices on that court were impeached" so it's clear the linked article is not about the general term
  • "a legal document; It featured" → "a legal document. It featured" or "a legal document; it featured"
  • Not a source review, but the source from Vanity Fair should be tagged as "limited" URL access
    • Similarly, the source from Law360 should be tagged with "registration"
  • "however contended" → "however, contended"
    • Done!

"SLAPP Suits" segment:

  • "The A. V. Club" → "The A.V. Club" (avoid redirect) – this spelling appears three times, twice in citations and once in prose under "Reaction and impact" without a link
    • ... oh god, you're kidding me, right? do you know how many West Wing episode articles I now have to update?
  • "attorney's fees" → "attorneys' fees" or "attorney fees"
    • Already done
  • "getting very tired of us" → "getting very tired" (avoid shift to first person)
    • Hmm, I not sure I agree? "tired" is just exhausted, "tired of us" implies directed exasperation. There's "getting very tired" of them, but I think it's okay for quotes to reference the speaker/speaker's group.
  • In alt text, "win tubes" → "with oxygen tubes"
  • Source from the Tages-Anzeiger should be tagged as German
    • Done!

Reaction and impact:

  • Did Murray ever respond to this? If so, it's probably worth noting that.
  • Suggest update Emmy Award to Primetime Emmy Award (same thing in lead)
  • Why is the nomination for Directing for a Variety Series listed differently? Every nomination has individual nominees, not just that category.
    • Mostly to reduce the SEAOFBLUE—I didn't want them to all be stacked next to each other, but I also didn't want to list individual nominees in every category. I thought that would be a good way out. Otherwise, done!

External links:

Here are the items that I still see:

  • "Murray's other SLAPP Suits" is not fixed
  • "attorney's fees" is not fixed (there may have been multiple instances, which I failed to note)
  • The A. V. Club is not fixed in citations (but not a huge issue)
  • Something I missed earlier in the "Reaction and impact" section: "as standard SLAPP Suit" → "as a standard SLAPP suit"
  • I understand now why you split the Emmy nomination for directing, but I think the wording is clunky. Maybe try: "Episode directors Christopher Werner and Paul Pennolino earned a nomination for Outstanding Directing for a Variety Series."

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123: done, thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 20:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good; happy to support now. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thank you so much! :D theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 23:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Kavyansh

edit

I tried to add only those comments which are not included above. Apologies if I repeat anything:

  • "Oliver was sued for defamation in 2017, after a segment aired by Oliver" — repetition of Oliver. Second 'Oliver' should be 'him'.
  • Changed to "after a segment he aired concerning the coal mining industry"
  • "the American Civil Liberties Union filed an amicus brief that" — shouldn't amicus breif be in italics? Both in the lead and the prose.
    • Well, I learned something today!
  • What is the title? "Eat Shit, Bob!" or "Eat Shit, Bob" (with or without '!')?
    • It's with the exclamation point, although it should be noted that it wasn't on the original check the miner returned (and it was on the oversized Mr. Nutterbutter check)
  • "Oliver began the piece by showing Donald Trump's affinity" — pipe 's out of the link.
  • "during his 2016 campaign" — should be "during his 2016 presidential campaign"
  • "Robert E. "Bob" Murray" is introduced in the lead, but 'Robert' in never used in the prose except in a direct quotation.
  • "KISS MY ASS BOB" — lowercase
  • "meticulously planned attempt to assassinate the character of and reputation of Mr. Robert E. Murray and his companies". — we'll need a citation immediately after this quote
    • Cited to The Daily Beast
  • "was dropped later" — should be "was later dropped"
  • ""Bob Murray can go fuck himself today!"." — both exclamatory mark and full stop?
  • "murdered Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and started World War I," — 'and started' should be 'that started'
    • I don't think so? He's saying "bob murray did this, this, this and this, this, this, and this". Or, something like that. i think that works
  • Suggesting to hyphenate ISBNs, using this tool.
  • The "External video" box should really be "External videos". For that, you can use the "|title=" parameter.

That is it for now. This FAC is going pretty well ... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was quite confident that this definitely wouldn't be failed. But that fact that you got 4 supports in 5 days is amazing! Maybe because of Wikicup, or maybe because people like John Oliver shouting "Eat Shit, Bob". All of my concerns are addressed, and I am happy to support as well. Thanks for your work on this article. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, imo, it's probably the "Eat Shit, Bob" thing. AryKun (talk) 09:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason it can't be both :D thanks again, Kavyansh! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 09:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review & spot-check by JJE

edit

version review :D

  1. Where does it give the date? I am admittedly a little uncomfortable with a source by an "entertainment editor" being used to discuss political actions.
    1. Recited date to new USA Today source
    2. Added ABC News source for Trump's campaign speech
  2. "Repeatedly criticized" isn't in the source? Is a "letter instructing us to cease and desist" the same thing as a cease-and-desist letter? The quote in the article is "any efforts to [...] injure Mr. Murray" but in the source it's "any effort to defame, harass, or otherwise injure Mr. Murray or Murray Energy" - feels a bit cherrypicked, to be honest. "an injunction barring the rebroadcast " in the source sounds a little narrower than the article's "a gag order on broadcasting the piece or airing it online". I can't find "Bob Murray died in October 2020 due to long-term lung illness. The Daily Beast remembered him as a "Coal Magnate and John Oliver Nemesis", highlighting the controversy between the two as a significant source of notoriety." in the source.
    1. Changed to "an outspoken critic" of obama and added The New York Times source
    2. Yeah, it was a cease-and-desist letter, i put that in there
    3. Cited gag order bit to Time magazine
    4. Recited The Daily Beast final paragraph to—wait for it—wait for it—The Daily Beast :D that's my bad, not sure how I forgot to make a new source for that one!
  3. Can't access this source.
    "Mr. Murray has adamantly insisted that the initial fatalities were not foreseeable because the collapse was caused by an earthquake rather than by mining operations."
  4. Apparently both sources speak of a subsidiary of Murray Energy, rather than the company itself.
  5. See above.
    Clarified ownership on that one; added information about Genwal and Agapito Associates
  6. The source does discuss voided bonus checks but does not explain why they were voided - that's OR by the article. And I am not seeing the hyperlink part, either.
    1. Added citations from ABA Journal and Huffpost for miners' checks story
    2. Changed language to "the response cited three news articles that did not support this argument..."
  7. Does the source say that the squirrel taunted Bob Murray?
    The headline says "Court Finds John Oliver Has the Right to Hire a Giant Squirrel Named 'Mr. Nutterbutter' to Insult Coal Barons"—I have to imagine that's pretty close, no?
  8. OK.
  9. OK apart from the Murray Energy thing under #4 which is a problem here too.
    1. Added "subsidiary"
  10. OK
  11. The article says it was dismissed the 24 February 2018 but the source says Wednesday - I think 24 February 2018 was a Saturday?
    My bad, changed to "February 21, 2018"
  12. The source does not specify all the accusations against the West Virginia Supreme Court judges, while the article does.
    Added citation from the West Virginia Record
  13. OK.
  14. OK but the source does not mention the judge's name.
    Not much I can do about this one :l
  15. OKish - I am not sure that I would formulate Croft's words as "either satirical humor or a matter of fact, depending on the statement"
    Another excuse for me to quote the fantastic brief!
  16. Can't read this source.
    Neither can i—the only part i used is available in the grey text that fades out.
  17. Can't read this source. I hope though that it sources all these grandiose jokes about all of Murray's fictitious misdeeds, though.
    Went through with DanCherek on this one, we should be fine
    I didn't receive this ping. Which of the three sources supports the statement about supplying drugs to Bill Cosby? DanCherek (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @DanCherek: the noping was on purpose—damn, my mistake, i missed that one. Cut the cosby line theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 23:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  18. "a video of Bob Murray promoting his lawsuit on Fox Business." in our article seems like it's overstating the source's case just a wee bit. I also presume that the headline was written by the author of the source. The kidney stone story also doesn't have nearly as much detail in the source as in the article.
    1. Changed it to "including clip of Murray on Fox Business responding to the original segment"—that should be enough
    2. It is with a heavy heart that I cut the kidney stone story—i'd have to rely on PLOTSOURCE to get that in there
  19. Can't access this source.
    "An enthusiastic litigator, Mr. Murray and his company sued many publications, including The New York Times, over coverage that displeased him."
  20. Can't access this source.
    It's a citation to the show itself, you can access it through the "external videos" box for the segment. please do let me know if this is enough to re-include the kidney stone story :D
  21. See under #18
  22. Where does it say that it's a "musical number"?
    Added citation from The Hollywood Reporter
  23. OK
  24. OK
  25. Can't access this source.
    Use "incognito mode" to reset the number of free articles you can obtain
  26. "Power" is plural in the source.
    Corrected :)
  27. OK
  28. According to the source West Virginia has no SLAPP statutes and not "relaxed SLAPP statutes".
    Changed from "have relaxed" to "lack"
  29. OK
  30. Can't access this source.
    That's funny, neither can i...
  31. Apparently the source does not call it "variety series or special", just "variety series".
    For Outstanding Sound Mixing on www.emmys.com? That's not what I'm seeing...

TBH, there a bit too much source-article disagreement for my liking. Which is particularly concerning because this isn't a purely fictional topic but one with real world political aspects. Sources are otherwise consistently formatted and look reliable although I know none of them very well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the review, Jo-Jo Eumerus! I think I got it all :D (a real shame I had to cut the kidney stone story) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 19:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that I like using a headline as a source. The saying "headlines are marketing" exists for a reason and I've seen far too many instances of headlines misrepresenting the article's content. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: gotcha, fair enough! I recited to The A.V. Club: "Well, perhaps Mr. Nutterbutter will refresh your memory, the 7-foot-tall squirrel mascot Last Week Tonight created to first mock Murray back in 2017..." theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 11:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: sorry to bug; howzit goin'? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 12:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the squirrel, I presume that "coal barons" means "Murray" and that the court ruling supports the headline. As for the kidney stone story, we can't use the show itself as a source for it IMO. In general, one thing I notice that sometimes it's unclear what happens in the show itself and what transpired in real life. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I cut some things that weren't explicitly in the episode, and made it a bit clearer when it was Oliver talking. again, shame about the kidney stone story :) anything else that should be cleared up? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 01:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, the main point is that everything needs to be clear on whether it's talking about real events or whether it was shown in the work. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Hmm, I'm struggling a bit—I've done my best to clarify, but I'm not sure what you're referring to. is there anything that feels like it could be either a real-life occurrence or a feature of the show in particular? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 10:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I still think is a problem is "any efforts to [...] injure Mr. Murray" and I'd rather not rely on the headline to source that the squirrel taunted Bob Murray. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: fixed the quote! The taunting sentence was recited to The A. V. Club, which mention's the squirrels shenanigans in the body of the article. should be source 12 theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 11:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for everything! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 11:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing that was flagged on my talk page: Is The Harvard Crimson a good source? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I'd argue yes—per WP:RSSM (it seems to be reliable for this topic) and the fact that it's one of three sources used for that sentence, I don't think it poses a huge problem. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 15:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
on second thought, given that professional sources are preferred and there's no need for the source, I'll just cut it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 15:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments by HF

edit
  • "The brief claimed Murray Energy was using the court as a vehicle to suppress free speech, arguing that this lawsuit "threaten[s] the fundamental right of the media to criticize public figures and speak candidly on matters of public concern"" - WP:RSP has Mary Sue as no consensus stating that it is used as "It is generally regarded as usable for reviews and opinion," but we're using this for a statement of fact. I'm not convinced that Mary Sue is a high-quality RS for the purpose of this statement
  • RSP says about Daily Beast - "There is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Beast. Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons." FA requires the higher standard of "high-quality RS" rather than just basic reliability. What makes this source strong enough for FAC, especially given that it's sometimes used to source potentially controversial content about Murray?

Hog Farm Talk 20:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Hog Farm! I swapped out the first citation from The Mary Sue to Courthouse News Service—it looks reliable enough, but I'll cut the sentence if you don't think so. As for The Daily Beast, wouldn't it still be reliable for its own opinion per WP:BIASED? It has some level of fact checking and editorialism, i don't think it's unreasonable to include that with inline attribution. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 22:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be okay with the attributed opinion if it is considered to be due weight. But I'm concerned about some other usage:
"Oliver began the piece by showing Donald Trump's affinity for the coal industry, including shots of him during his 2016 presidential campaign in a coal miner's hat and delivering a speech in which he told the miners to prepare to work their "asses off" when he became president" - is sourced solely to DB and a news piece about Trump and coal mining from a month before the Oliver segment. So DB is the primary source for the material about Oliver's segment and the connection between the segment and the speech. Not really controversial, but for FA purposes, we should be using a better source than DB here.
"The complaint alleged that Oliver carried out a "meticulously planned attempt to assassinate the character of and reputation of Mr. Robert E. Murray and his companies".[14] The plaintiffs criticized Oliver's coverage of the Crandall Canyon Mine collapse, reiterating their claim that the primary collapse was caused by an earthquake, rather than unsafe mining practices on the part of the Murray Energy subsidiary" - is again factual statements cited solely to DB, ideally a better source should be used here

I don't see any issue with the last usage of DB, which is an attributed statement of opinion. Hog Farm Talk 22:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: fair enough—the second one was easy to deal with, the Washington Post covers basically all the same stuff. The first one I had to recite to Mother Jones, which is also biased, but it is still RSP-greenlit—combined with the ABC source, I think we're pretty much there? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 22:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think this is pretty well resolved now. Hog Farm Talk 02:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/SLAPP_Suits/archive1&oldid=1067428351"