Talk:Rector v. Major League Baseball Advanced Media/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Courcelles (talk · contribs) 01:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

An interesting little read, I'll have some comments shortly. Courcelles (talk) 01:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• Publication date for ref 7 is wrong.

• Still wrong. Courcelles (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 4; don't abbreviate newspapers' names

• Better now. Courcelles (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• "it was covered by a number of media organizations worldwide." One article in Australia? Got any more citations for worldwide coverage?

• Better now Courcelles (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• What makes ref 12, a Wordpress blog, reliable?

• Looks to be gone. Courcelles (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• "Worst Lawsuit Ever" is only in caps because it was part of the title of the article, we don't need to follow that here.

• Fixed. Courcelles (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• "After the decision, legal practitioners" One person's opinion, unless you've got other sources.

• Still an issue, attribute the position, don't handwave towards multiple "legal practitioners" Or even better yet, lose this sentence which seems to be a fringe position of one man on a blog as the article stands. Courcelles (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• Both refs 15 and 16 have authors and publication dates available. Ref 10 has an author available.

• Still an issue, see now also ref 8. Courcelles (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 2? Reliable or not?

• Still don't think this is an RS. Courcelles (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 14 is explicitly about postseason tickets. This was not a postseason game.

• Better now. Courcelles (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• I'[m really worried about the referencing here, which seems overly reliant on blogs for the analysis. Courcelles (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Courcelles: I have done my best to answer your points and I think it is ready for another look now. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• My responses in-line. Courcelles (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Courcelles: I have made more alterations. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• Last thing left appears to be the legal practitioners claim about deserving disbarment, which is sourced to one guy's blog. Courcelles (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Courcelles: I have removed that now. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• Good, then this one passes. Promoting. Courcelles (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)