Talk:Rector v. Major League Baseball Advanced Media

Rector v. Major League Baseball Advanced Media has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: April 26, 2018. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Rector v. Major League Baseball Advanced Media appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 2 April 2018 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that a fan sued Major League Baseball for $10 million after he was filmed sleeping at a game and the announcers allegedly made unflattering comments about him?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2018/April. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rector v. MLB.

Wikipedia

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York (state) Low‑importance

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York 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.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles 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.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Baseball: Yankees Low‑importance

	Baseball portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball 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.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject New York Yankees.

United States: 50,000 Challenge Low‑importance

	United States portal 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article was created or improved during this WikiProject's 50,000 Challenge, which started on November 1, 2016, and is ongoing. You can help!

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Title

I'm concerned about the title of this article. No reliable sources have called this case "Rector v. MLB". Is there any better title that could be used? Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does "Rector v. Major League Baseball Advanced Media" sound like an acceptable title? Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would not oppose this new title. Yousou (Complain) 14:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

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

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

Publication date for ref 7 is wrong.

Still wrong. Courcelles (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 4; don't abbreviate newspapers' names

Better now. Courcelles (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

What makes ref 12, a Wordpress blog, reliable?

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

"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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ref 2? Reliable or not?

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

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

Better now. Courcelles (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
- @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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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