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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
With that, I vote that the DYK be approved. Congratulations. --RickyCourtney (talk) 07:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
@GRuban, RickyCourtney, and Cwmhiraeth: I came by this while promoting Prep 1 to queue 1, and am unwilling to promote it in its current condition. Two issues; first, though the paid editing on this was disclosed, it has left some overtones of puffery that still need cleaning up (yes, I know a good bit of work was done on this already, thanks for that). Second, I'm not seeing the hook explicitly in the article. The article says he was conciliatory, and it says he settled multiple suits, but I cannot see where it says he had a reputation for settling. Furthermore, it occurs to me that the hook would actually be better even if that factoid were simply removed. I could address these myself, but I'd prefer not to take so many unilateral actions. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 06:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: I agree with your comment about his reputation for settling disputes (I had wondered about that myself) and your hook suggestion, which would give us
ALT2 ... that Microsoft's Brad Smith filed multiple data privacy lawsuits against the US government?
Hrr. I guess that means I didn't write the article well enough. I thought the fact that Smith settled cases instead of fighting them was pointed out as a big deal. The first (and one of the main) reference for the article is titled "Teaching Microsoft to Make Nice". The article says: "Smith has been described as conciliatory toward competitors and regulators.[1] As general counsel and executive vice president reporting to then-CEO Steve Ballmer, Smith led negotiations to settle cases with several of Microsoft's competitors, with Microsoft paying $5 billion to plaintiffs.[5][8] He settled cases with AOL Time-Warner, Sun Microsystems, and Be Inc., aiming for win-win resolutions, and garnering praise from their chief counsels.[1] Smith also met foreign leaders, lobbied, and oversaw negotiations with the European Commission over antitrust accusations, settling most issues in 2010." 4 consecutive sentences, saying "conciliatory", "settle", "settled", "settling". That's basically what he did as chief counsel, he settled cases, huge cases, cases that had gone on for years, many of them, for billions in payouts. $5B is a lot of money. That's not enough? How should it be rephrased?
Also, please be specific about the puffery, I'd love to clean it up, but as I wrote before, I've spent so log writing the thing I just don't see it any more. Point it out and I'll suggest a rephrase. --GRuban (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
@GRuban: I would much prefer ALT2: I think it's hookier, too. As to puffery, it's a lot of small things. For instance; "he has led multi-million dollar partnerships to bring technology to aid the United Nations Office on Human Rights and American rural areas." If all of it is necessary in the lead, I would write it as "has led efforts to bring broadband and technology jobs to rural American, and has signed partnerships with the United Nations Office on Human Rights". Which is wordier but more precise, I feel. Later in the article, "Smith saw the job of Microsoft's general counsel as being not only a lawyer, but also politician and diplomat." Not quite what the source says; also, not a detail I think adds very much. "Smith also met foreign leaders, lobbied," What does this fragment add? In several places, the article uses the term "diversity" without specifying what that means, at which point it just becomes a corporate buzzword. "Hiring women and racial minorities" is specific; what does "diversity" even mean? In a room full of south Asian software engineers, a white man would add diversity; but I'm pretty sure that's not what's meant here. None of these things would be a problem in isolation, but taken together I can see them as nothing but a residue of paid editing. If you want me to go right through I can, but not until tomorrow. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: Sorry it took this long, life came up. The COI thing makes it harder; I can't (well, shouldn't!) edit the article in mainspace, so I made two drafts in my user space. Hopefully at least one will answer the issues.
User:GRuban/Brad Smith This is my preferred version, it emphasizes the story I found in the sources, the "politician, diplomat", thing. There are lots of ways to be a high powered lawyer and business executive, this guy is, in general, a deal maker, rather than a combatant. Most of the article sources say just that. Hence the DYK hook I'm suggesting. These are the changes from mainspace.
User:GRuban/Brad Smith (2) This is the version that cuts out the "politician, diplomat" story, as you seem to have suggested. I think it's a loss, but I won't fight to the death over it. If you honestly think it's better, I will accept the hook you're suggesting. These are the changes from mainspace.
Both versions hopefully address the other points you brought up, rephrasing the lede and expanding what diversity means (adding a Washington Post source). I'll trust your choice; per the COI thing, you'll need to do the mainspace edit, as I shouldn't, as above. --GRuban (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
@GRuban: I believe this version is a significant improvement. I'm uncertain as to why you want me to make the edits; it isn't you that has the COI, is it? Or have I misread above? In any case, I'd be okay with that (if I made the edits I'd probably copy-edit as well) but in that case you would need someone else to approve the hook, I think; at that point I would have been too involved. Let me know. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 04:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93:Yes. (I've now had to explain this enough times I decided to write a page about it! Hopefully it's a good read.) Please do all the copy-edits you like, the more the merrier. When you are done, we can probably ping User:RickyCourtney to approve whichever hook you prefer, he seemed happy with both, and especially your reasoning, so I think he'll agree to whatever you choose. --GRuban (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
@GRuban: Okay, working on it; though you may have noticed I'm rather harsh with what I consider to be fluff. One issue so far; you expanded the definition of diversity goals, but that expanded definition isn't in the source. Could you try to find some sourcing? Otherwise, dumping that might be the best way to go forward. Vanamonde (talk) 08:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Whew, I was afraid to look, but your copyedits are fine, no objections. Still prefer ALT2 to the original, despite the rephrasing emphasizing the "make peace not war" bits? OK, c'est la vie. Since this DYK review is now having an impact on article content, I'm going to embed this review in the article talk page (as is sometimes suggested in DYK). My expansion of the diversity definition ("racial minority, women, and LGBT employee") was from the Washington Post article, which writes "women, minorities and lawyers who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender". It also quotes Smith directly defining diversity as: "diverse (women, minorities or LGBT)". --GRuban (talk) 14:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: WaPost article for "diversity" definition as above? --GRuban (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Sorry! Yes, that looks fine. I'd suggest wording it along the lines of "increase employment of..." and given our discussion here, I think it would be fine for you to make the change; I'll review it at my leisure, I'm a bit caught up right now. Vanamonde (talk) 04:51, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
New reviewer needed for proposed ALT2, as above; I'm done copy-editing. Vanamonde (talk) 08:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
First off, a huge hat tip to all involved. I'm amazed by the amount of work that was done on this article after the comments on the DYK. I am okay with the wording of ALT2. It's more concise, better supported by references and "hook-ier." It gets my approval. --RickyCourtney (talk) 07:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: - did this fall off the queue somewhere? I don't see it listed in any of the DYK approved or DYK pending pages ...? --GRuban (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Odd...I'm going to ping Yoninah here, because though I could move it manually, I don't want to mess with the bot unintentionally. Vanamonde (talk) 02:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
With that, I vote that the DYK be approved. Congratulations. --RickyCourtney (talk) 07:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
New reviewer needed for proposed ALT2, as above; I'm done copy-editing. Vanamonde (talk) 08:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
First off, a huge hat tip to all involved. I'm amazed by the amount of work that was done on this article after the comments on the DYK. I am okay with the wording of ALT2. It's more concise, better supported by references and "hook-ier." It gets my approval. --RickyCourtney (talk) 07:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)