Wikipedia:Peer review/Viking Saga censorship incident/archive1

Viking Saga censorship incident


I started this article shortly after the incident. There was recently some new press coverage (the dismissed lawsuit) which I added to the article and I think it's now ready for WP:GAN. My concern is that while I've tried to be neutral, I'm not sure I've succeeded. I'll be honest; I'm sympathetic to the students. The bigger problem is that most of the sources I've found are also sympathetic to the students, which isn't surprising because it would be hard to find any media outlets which are sympathetic to media censorship. But maybe I just haven't been looking in the right places?

So, my specific ask is, "Does this meet WP:NPOV?". I'd also be eager to know about any sources you've found which side with the school administration.

Thanks, RoySmith (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Briefly commenting here; hopefully you get someone to be more extensive. Answering the specific question posed, yes, I think the article broadly presents a neutral POV in line with reliable sources on the subject. In terms of a possible GAN, I have a couple comments.
 * School board officials confirmed that they were "upset" by the "editorial content". -- Based on my reading, the AP source attributes the "editorial content" portion to a school employee, not a school board official. And the "upset" remark is only by one official (i.e., not officials), who we can probably just name. Or, since I think it's possible that a someone could reasonably read these as a form of scare quotes (although I know we're directly quoting something), perhaps we could just rewrite this sentence.
 * I think the number of block quotes is somewhat excessive; we could just paraphrase some of these statements and leave one if needed
 * Words like "noted" (in noting Judge Gerrard's opinion that) are perhaps edging the NPOV line since it suggests the statement by these individuals is learned, respected, scholarly, informed, etc. Which may be the case but a simpler "said" is probably better.
 * The magazine Reason took exception -- perhaps but not quite, it seems. Maybe more reasonable to attribute to the specific writer
 * The Martin citation ([23] as of writing) needs moved to the end of the para because the material appears uncited but that's where it comes from
 * Perhaps relevant but may be too primary or superfluous. This claims the paper has restarted (can't access the link in the article tho), as opposed to what we say, which is that as of Feb 2023, it was planned to restart but had not yet.
 * Hopefully this is helpful. We need more Nebraska articles that get to the GAN stage so if I can be more helpful let me know... but of course, no promises. Urve (talk) 03:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Urve Yes, that was very helpful, thank you. I've addressed most of your points in the article.  I haven't done anything about the block quotes yet.  I'm thinking about the best way to handle those, but for the moment, I'm leaning towards leaving them as they are now.  I've seen conflicting reports about whether publication has actually restarted or not, so I tried to not say too much about that; what I've got on the subject is the last paragraph of the "Response" section.  I think I'm going to skip using Students who fought high school censorship in California, Nebraska win 2023 Courage Award.  The SPLC is clearly biased.  The award is a bit self-serving and I don't think really adds to the reader's understanding of the censorship incident. RoySmith (talk) 15:00, 24 February 2024 (UTC)