User talk:Larry Hockett
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment
You are receiving this message because you were a Good article reviewer on at least one article that is part of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 or you signed up for messages. An AN discussion closed with consensus to delist this group of Good articles for copyright and other problems, unless a reviewer opens an independent Good article reassessment and can vouch for/verify content of all sources. Please review Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information. A list of the GA reviewers can be found here. Questions or comments can be made at the project talk page. You can opt in or out of further messages at this page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Jeff Fortenberry
Hi Larry,
I understand what you're saying as far as the crimes vs. being a congressman, but to me, it's a question of weight, and how much reliable sources are mentioning him for either thing. Most of the coverage of Fortenberry is a result of his conviction - there are 438 congresspeople, and they come and go a lot, but it's not every day one of them is convicted of multiple felonies - which is why the coverage is so heavily skewed towards his felony convictions. I liken it to John du Pont - sure, he would've had an article anyway, if he hadn't committed a murder, but since most of his coverage stems from the fact that he murdered someone, the article includes that in the first sentence. Let me know what you think. Thanks. Wes sideman (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- I can see your point on a certain level, but I don't think there are many similarities between the crimes of Fortenberry and du Pont. I think it makes us look bloodthirsty to add it into the opening sentence. Larry Hockett (Talk) 18:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- Well, of course the crimes are different - I wouldn't put "convicted murderer" on Fortenberry's article. But "convicted felon" is certainly factually true - it's not in dispute, and the vast majority of coverage on him stems from those convictions. My understanding is that the lead sentence generally should highlight what he's most notable for. Being a (former/disgraced) congressperson doesn't provide an exception to that rule. We certainly don't do it for Betty Loren-Maltese, Nathan Harper, or Mike Carona, and they all had government positions as well. Wes sideman (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- Eh, I don't buy the argument that convicted felon in the opening sentence helps to clarify his notability. It feels gratuitous because it's such a broad term that the reader doesn't really learn anything from it. The real explanation is in the third sentence. I appreciate the fact that you heard me out, and it's not worth losing sleep over. After all, as you point out, such writing is not rare on WP. Larry Hockett (Talk) 18:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- I appreciate your thoughtful responses as well. Thanks. Wes sideman (talk) 11:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- Eh, I don't buy the argument that convicted felon in the opening sentence helps to clarify his notability. It feels gratuitous because it's such a broad term that the reader doesn't really learn anything from it. The real explanation is in the third sentence. I appreciate the fact that you heard me out, and it's not worth losing sleep over. After all, as you point out, such writing is not rare on WP. Larry Hockett (Talk) 18:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- Well, of course the crimes are different - I wouldn't put "convicted murderer" on Fortenberry's article. But "convicted felon" is certainly factually true - it's not in dispute, and the vast majority of coverage on him stems from those convictions. My understanding is that the lead sentence generally should highlight what he's most notable for. Being a (former/disgraced) congressperson doesn't provide an exception to that rule. We certainly don't do it for Betty Loren-Maltese, Nathan Harper, or Mike Carona, and they all had government positions as well. Wes sideman (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of A Dying Cub Fan's Last Request
The article A Dying Cub Fan's Last Request you nominated as a good article has failed 
; see Talk:A Dying Cub Fan's Last Request for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of HueSatLum -- HueSatLum (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Your reverts on my recent edits
Hi Mr. Larry, i'm very sorry. I shouldn't give them the "This is Random User's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.", i know that i don't possess any of these user pages. I'll do a better job next time. 2601:280:4F81:4490:D9E8:37CF:D62:BC68 (talk) 05:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)