A fact from Nobody's Victim appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 26 April 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that lawyer Carrie Goldberg was inspired to share her experience of sexual violence in Nobody's Victim by her clients, who had entrusted her with their own stories?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
ALT1: ... that lawyer Carrie Goldberg was inspired to share her experience of sexual violence in Nobody's Victim by her clients, who had entrusted her with their own stories?
Other problems: - @Bilorv: The hook is compelling, but I've copyedited it to address some minor phrasing concerns. My alternative wording is provided above. My revision is substantially the same hook; here's my details explanation of the changes:
I feel like leading with "... that in Nobody's Victim, [...]" is ambiguous and primes some possible misreadings of the hook—for example, it may suggest that the hook is a retelling of fictional events, or they may interpret Nobody's Victim as the title of a nonfiction work in which Goldberg discussed her inspiration for telling her story, rather than being the work in which her story itself was told. This is minor, but worth heading off all the same imo.
I've replaced the second instance of the word "shared" with "entrusted". The first use of "share" here means, roughly, "shared openly with the world", but the second sense of "sharing with an attorney" is more complicated and far less casual. As an attorney and litigator, Goldberg would have engaged in confidential conversations with her (prospective) clients and become privy to many details of their lives; some of those details may have been legally irrelevant for purposes of filing legal action, yet still deeply "personal" and difficult to tell another person. These clients trusted her not only with publicly disclosing the necessary/relevant personal details but also, implicitly, with maintaining her professional/ethical duty of confidentiality regarding the rest. The word "entrusted" covers all the bases.
I added the word "their own stories" to clarify that these were likewise stories of sexual violence (and, on a deeper level, that what Goldberg found inspiring was her clients' example of bravery, not some facet of their storytelling per se).
Let me know what you think or if you have any objections/suggested changes, otherwise I'm happy to approve ALT1
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Thanks for the review, blz. I think your rewording is an improvement and am happy to go with it. Let me know if there's anything else you need from me! — Bilorv (talk) 12:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Bilorv, I'll be taking up the review for this nomination as well and will present it to you shortly. I hope you find my feedback helpful. Tayi ArajakateTalk 01:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, Tayi Arajakate; I've addressed your comments so far. — Bilorv (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bilorv, the article more or less meets the GA criteria and I'd promote it but I have one query. Can you see if Goldberg's image is properly tagged? It says it's in the public domain but I can't seem to find the licensing on the source anywhere. Tayi ArajakateTalk 05:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tayi Arajakate: yes, if you go to the Vimeo link then there is a public domain release there. For my device, you have to click on "More" just under the title (next to the "4 years ago") and hover over the license symbol. This is an official video by the Jewish Film Institute. — Bilorv (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I'll go ahead and promote the article now. Tayi ArajakateTalk 13:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"... swatting under her name", just to clarify this refers to Thompson using Rossi's name to swat other people, right? If it's Thompson swatting Rossi then the wording should be changed.
Yep, that's the right reading: Thompson called swats of third parties in under Rossi's name. — Bilorv (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"... ran a website dedicated to posting non-consensual pornography ...", does this involve sexual assault in pornography or is it non-consensual publishing of sexual acts? Could be made clearer.
"Non-consensual pornography" is the technical term that I think is most objective: sometimes "revenge porn" is used to describe it, but that has an obvious implication of motive ("revenge") that is often not the case. It describes any sexual content that is published without the consent of all people featured; this may have been made with/without knowledge of the person featured. It is not (generally) professional porn, but its distribution and consumption makes it pornography. I've linked "non-consensual pornography" to revenge porn on first mention (which isn't ideal, but hopefully improves understanding). — Bilorv (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The online disinhibition effect and mob psychology may contribute to their behavior", reads like a statement in wiki-voice. Could change the wording to attribute it to the book. Some of the other sentences are similar, for example the paragraph on "Porn Troll Sex Police" reads like a narration independent of the book and the sentences following "Abuse by Harvey Weinstein ..." reads like it's independent of its chapter. This isn't particularly a big issue since there is the context but still could be made clearer.
Yeah, I see your point: I think it comes from trying to write with exceeding concision (my first draft of the synopsis was over 1500 words long). For the first quote, this is in wiki-voice: Goldberg is unequivocal that online disinhibition / mob psychology does contribute to their behavior. I've reworded bits to try to improve this, but I don't think I can fix the problem entirely without beginning every sentence with "In the book, Goldberg writes that ...". — Bilorv (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In, "... she lost autonomy after drinking a shot he gave her", the wording of "to lose autonomy" may not be easily understood. Could it be improved with something like "lost consciousness", "drugged", "lost autonomy after drinking a spiked shot", etc?
Ah, the problem here is that I'm trying to convey the implication of being spiked, but it is not a firm conclusion by Goldberg. The most relevant passage is: When I returned to the table, I found he'd ordered us another round. He smiled and slid a shot glass of liquor toward me. After that, things got mushy. / I remember the rest of the night as a series of hazy snapshots. (p.213). I think this implication should just be avoided altogether, and I've now averted it with She was raped on a first date with a doctor and, during the act .... — Bilorv (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are the chapters in the synopsis in the same order as in the book? If not, they should probably be so. The starting portion of the section should mention how many chapters there are if the book gives numbers to its chapters.
They're in order. There's an introduction, nine numbered chapters and a conclusion (plus some back matter). The synopsis now opens Nobody's Victim has an introduction, nine chapters and a conclusion., which is perhaps a bit abrupt, but I don't know how to integrate it in more seamlessly. — Bilorv (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The citations with bundled refs have their first refs appear as a heading instead of a point like the rest.
The interview quotes about the importance of the book and the typology doesn't quite seem to fit in a sub-section called writing process, so perhaps the name could be modified? The first one could probably work well as second sentence in the introduction to the background section or even as the second sentence in legal cases subsection.
Moved the first one per suggestion. Does renaming "Writing process" to just "Writing" address the second? — Bilorv (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"... and part of the #MeToo movement" doesn't flow well in its sentence, the length of it makes it somewhat confusing as to what it . Could the sentence be divided into two or reworded otherwise?
Split into two sentences. — Bilorv (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "relatedly" in the last sentence doesn't belong.
"She also represented five women who were sexually abused by Harvey Weinstein." Should probably specify that it's in the book.
Added "... a topic covered in Nobody's Victim". — Bilorv (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the lead and body, the Grindr case and the school case are both refered to as havving recieved national media attention alternatively which looks like an inconsistency. Since both of them recieved national media attention could it be specified for both in the lead and the body?
I think "national" was specified for both in the body, and now is in the lead. — Bilorv (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
- @Bilorv: The hook is compelling, but I've copyedited it to address some minor phrasing concerns. My alternative wording is provided above. My revision is substantially the same hook; here's my details explanation of the changes:
—blz 2049 ➠ ❏ 11:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
