Talk:SLAPP Suits

Assessment of articles
Pinging, , , and 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)
 * , 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)
 * Thanks for the reply! I'll work on expanding the reactions next. Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

To FA... and beyond?
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. @ Great work on the article. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 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 ?
 * 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


 * 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, 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)