Talk:Rector v. Major League Baseball Advanced Media

(Redirected from Talk:Rector v. MLB)
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Courcelles in topic GA Review

Title edit

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 edit

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.
  • Ref 4; don't abbreviate newspapers' names
  • "it was covered by a number of media organizations worldwide." One article in Australia? Got any more citations for worldwide coverage?
  • What makes ref 12, a Wordpress blog, reliable?
  • "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.
  • "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.
  • Ref 2? Reliable or not?
  • Ref 14 is explicitly about postseason tickets. This was not a postseason game.
  • 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