Talk:SLAPP Suits

Assessment of articles

Pinging @Another Believer:, @Epicgenius:, @Tvtonightokc:, and @Starship.paint: I wrote the synopsis and a bit of reaction, but I need an assessment on the article and I don't know how to improve it. I ping y'all because you have experience with writing these kinds of articles. Where do I go from here? Please advise. Theleekycauldron (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Theleekycauldron, thanks for the ping. From a quick glance, I would assess this at high start or even C class. I would try to expand the reaction section much more, though. At the moment, half the article is about background, so I'd try to expand the other sections. Epicgenius (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Epicgenius Thanks for the reply! I'll work on expanding the reactions next. Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination

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.

The result was: promoted by Vaticidalprophet (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that John Oliver was sued for defamation when he made a man in a large squirrel costume tell a coal industry CEO to "eat shit" on his show?
  • ALT1:... that John Oliver staged a musical number in Times Square entitled "Eat Shit, Bob" upon winning a defamation lawsuit?
  • ALT2:... that Last Week Tonight with John Oliver was nominated for a Primetime Emmy Award for a Times Square musical number entitled "Eat Shit, Bob" upon winning a libel lawsuit?

Created by Theleekycauldron (talk). Self-nominated at 08:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC).

• Date and length fine. Having seen the episode, the hooks are correct and they are sourced inline. @Theleekycauldron: If you wanted to, you could name Bob Murray in the first hook as BLP no longer applies to him given he died a few months ago. My preference would be for ALT0. QPQ is not needed as this is their first nomination. No close paraphrasing. Good to go. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

References

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:SLAPP Suits/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 23:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments by the end of the week. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Infobox and lead

• Add either the "{{Use mdy dates}}" or "{{Use dmy dates}}" template so the reference dates are consistent.
  •  Done
• The non-free use rationale is in great shape!
  • Well, I stole it from Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight) for the infobox picture and edited it. :) Credit where credit is due to Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs).
• Couldn't find any issues with the infobox.
  • Very noice!
• Lead should include stuff from each section, so add something from #Reaction.
  •  Done

Background

Coal

• Since the first sentence is in part-tense, the rest should be too (ex. "begins" → "began").
  • Assuming you meant past tense, i'll comb through.
    • It should be done now, take a look?

Yeah, looks good now. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• Even though it's not broken, could you fix the link to Donald Trump?
  •  Done
• Optional, but I suggest changing "..." to "[...]".
  • I'll take it–  Done
• Remove the comma after "ignored this letter".
  •  Done

Lawsuit

• "alleges" → "alleged" (already happened)
  •  Done
• Remove the comma after "part of Murray Energy".
  •  Done

Episode

• In this section, and in others, there are words/events that should be in past-tense since they already happened.
  • I think I fixed that now, but I'm not sure.
• "a negative content" → "negative content"
  •  Done
• Remove the comma after "another lawsuit".
  •  Done
• "in squirrel costume" → "in a squirrel costume"
  • I did "squirrel costumes", because it's a barbershop quartet and therefore multiple people.

Reaction

• This section looks good.

References

• AV Club → The A.V. Club
• "www.youtube.com" → "YouTube"
• "www.thecrimson.com" → The Harvard Crimson
• The A. V. Club → The A.V. Club
• the Guardian → The Guardian
• Archive all archivable sources (either manually or with this tool).
• Optional, but it's helpful to readers to link websites.
• There are some references (ex. #7) that are written with multiple templates such as "Webarchive". Try using the "cite web" template instead.
• Mark references from Los Angeles Times with "|url-access=limited".
• Mark references from Time with "|url-access=limited".
• Mark references from The New York Times with "|url-access=limited".
• Mark references from The Washington Post with "|url-access=registration".
• Mark references from Vulture with "|url-access=limited".
  •  Done Pretty sure I did all of these? I ran IAbot beforehand, and just ran it now, but I think the Webarchive one needs to be checked again.
  • @Some Dude From North Carolina: I'll ping you here, let me know!

@Theleekycauldron: On the topic of the Webarchive reference, I would simply rewrite the citation and add in content, and if its dead, I would mark it as dead. Either way, it's not a major issue, so I will be passing the article. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 16:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Progress

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

To FA... and beyond?

@Gerda Arendt: here seems like a good place for comments? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Quick comment. I would suggest (this seems like it's often raised as an issue at FAC?) making the citations consistent in whether they use sentence or title case, and to make sure that the titles are correct. For example, reference 23 is in sentence case, but 9 is in title case; reference 7 includes "| NBC News" when this is not part of the actual article title (it's autogenerated by the citation tool). More substantively, the "Reaction" section is stubby - is there a way to connect these ideas together? I would have my hand at it, but I'm unfamiliar with the source material and whether there are some not included. There's some information here about the disposition of his case, and the judge lamenting that there is no anti-SLAAP statute in that state (you can access it on WP:TWL). May have some other comments, just quick thoughts. Urve (talk) 07:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much! First of all, the Hamilton quote at the top of this very official looking document immediately has my heart. Perfect. I corrected ref 7, and I'll figure out what to do about title vs sentence case, I thought it was just going along with the article itself. As for the reaction section, I think the trouble is that a lot of sources on the episode itself don't focus so much on careful analysis as they do reprinting every word Oliver says in a more subtle kind of fawning. So episode analysis isn't as well documented, but I'll keep looking. thanks again, if you have any other comments, I'd love to hear them! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 08:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

like, here, look at this article from The Guardian. Not an ounce of original journalism or independent thought went into this article. No discussion about whether he's right or wrong or how it was produced, or what this says for the concept of free speech in the age of Trump, nothing—someone just watched a television episode and wrote down what they saw. For the people who didn't catch it on HBO Max or YouTube. This wouldn't fly as a sixth grader's book report, much less a reputable news article. Okay, fine, the title of the musical number is called "apt". Whoop dee doo. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 08:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Understood. Will come back eventually for more. Interesting opinion, but only marginally useful. Urve (talk) 09:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Some general comments before Gerda's expert comments. I know literally nothing about the topic, so these are all non-expert comments. Feel free to correct me.

• Apart from title vs sentence case, there is inconsistency in liking the publisher/news agency. The Washington Post, The A.V. Club, The Harvard Crimson are linked; while The New York Times, Time, etc. are not. It is often suggested to link all or none.
• CNN should not be italicized. Also, why is it used as {{cite journal}}?
• Ref#7 is missing publisher/news agency
  • Ref#10 – same as above
• Ref#13 – Missing author (Locker, Melissa)
• Ref#16 – missing publisher/news agency
• Ref#23 needs author
  • Ref#27 needs author
• US$1,850,000 – Seems overlinking
  • US$200,000 – same
• Per WP:PARAGRAPH, try to avoid one line paragraphs (something which is often raised at FAC)
• The ACLU chapter – would it be better to write is as "The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) chapter", and use abbreviation in all other instances?
• A Brief History of Plaintiffs’ Attempts (emphasis mine) – Remove the curly quote
  • "Of course, this is John Oliver we’re talking about (emphasis mine) – same
• by the courts against HuffPost, – Italicize HuffPost.
• 5 days after the 2016 United States presidential election, – 'United States' seems reductant
• result of the Presidential election – 'P' shouldn't be capitalized, I guess.
• We can use just "Oliver" in place of "John Oliver" , when not used in quotes
• Huffington Post v. HuffPost – consistency needed
• First Amendment is linked twice.
• we have just one tiny thing to say..." – Add a non-breaking space before the three ellipsis

@Theleekycauldron – Great work on the article. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay, well first, that's the last time I use that god damned automatic citation tool. Thank god I've been entering them in manually in my new articles. Thanks for the feedback! I didn't substitute every John Oliver, because I like the stylistic choice of leaving it in full sometimes, it's a short name. Other than that, fixed everything up! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 09:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Changes look good! Any chance of adding a citation for first paragraph of "Coal" section. Rest, the article is easy to read, even for a complete non-expert like me. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I thought that since it was sourced to the work itself, it didn't have to be cited—usually gets me through the DYK process. I am filling the last prep set and then I am going to sleep wonderfully. Thanks so much for the help! If you've got anything else, also welcome theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 10:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Corrupted court: unrelated

In SLAPP Suits § Defamation lawsuit, the article now says "but four of the five justices on that court were impeached for charges relating to corruption". I wondered how or whether the corruption was related to this case, and found in (understood from) the link it did not. Could we add "unrelated" to the sentence? -DePiep (talk) 07:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

DePiep: fixed! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

coming to the D in BRD

@MisfitToys: I'll stop pushing on the legal terms, but Trump wasn't president at the time of the speech? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Not MisfitToys, but I don't think it's relevant that (some of) the clips of Trump were from before his presidency; what's relevant is that he was president at the time Oliver produced the segment, which was indeed about President Donald Trump's affinity for coal.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  20:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)