Talk:Rapper Snoop Dogg arrested on cannabis charges

Review of revision 1364914 [Not ready]

Revision 1364914 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 04:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: See below. Newsworthiness: Not ready: See below. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: Although one could indeed argue he was arrested "for" possession of the drug, in that Brooks's statement indicates his possession of it was the cause of the arrest, the sources do not say (afaics) he was charged with possession of the drug, but for possession of paraphernalia. That fact is not stated here; instead, by default the impression is given that he was charged with possession, with some confusion created by the comment by the county judge about paraphernalia. Btw, the judge didn't say a $500 mail-in fine is typical, she seems to have said a mail-in fine is typical and the amount is up to $500. Of the second paragraph, the first two sentences were too close to the sources. Don't just superficially "scuff up" a sentence, avoid copying phrase/sentence structure; I expended some of my leeway as an independent reviewer to demonstrate. Is this newsworthy? It's happened to Snoop Dogg lots of times. Combine that with the minimality of this article, and I need more convincing. Though I'd thoroughly checked the first three sentences, I haven't been as thorough with the last four. I do observe that the source doesn't mention his agent, it mentions his spokesman, which I don't assume to be necessarily the same thing; and more subtly, I'm not too sure "not available for comment" gives quite the right impression when we say it in this case. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 1364914 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 04:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: See below. Newsworthiness: Not ready: See below. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: Although one could indeed argue he was arrested "for" possession of the drug, in that Brooks's statement indicates his possession of it was the cause of the arrest, the sources do not say (afaics) he was charged with possession of the drug, but for possession of paraphernalia. That fact is not stated here; instead, by default the impression is given that he was charged with possession, with some confusion created by the comment by the county judge about paraphernalia. Btw, the judge didn't say a $500 mail-in fine is typical, she seems to have said a mail-in fine is typical and the amount is up to $500. Of the second paragraph, the first two sentences were too close to the sources. Don't just superficially "scuff up" a sentence, avoid copying phrase/sentence structure; I expended some of my leeway as an independent reviewer to demonstrate. Is this newsworthy? It's happened to Snoop Dogg lots of times. Combine that with the minimality of this article, and I need more convincing. Though I'd thoroughly checked the first three sentences, I haven't been as thorough with the last four. I do observe that the source doesn't mention his agent, it mentions his spokesman, which I don't assume to be necessarily the same thing; and more subtly, I'm not too sure "not available for comment" gives quite the right impression when we say it in this case. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

1. At no time in the article I wrote that he was charged. I'm not seeing how a person that knows the difference could be mislead that he was "charged".
2. I agree that there should be a change from "Cannabis" to "Paraphernalia".
3. I will reword the judge's comment to reflect the actual comment.
4. Thank you for fixing the perceived copy-vio. it was not my intent to do so, but slight changes do avoid charges of plagiarism. I suppose that in this instance it was subjective to the reviewer.
5. Yes, it is in my opinion newsworthy. Snoop Dogg is a internationally recognized person (I don't like him, but that's POV) that is of interest to the global public on the subject of music. It can come up later that he can deny the charges, the judge imposes a heftier fine or actual jail time, etc and it might be helpful that we are covering the situation from start to end. I would like a second opinion from another reviewer to convince me that this isn't newsworthy.
6. One source says "Agent" another says "Spokesman". In either case, neither source was able to get touch. Phearson (talk) 05:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it really not clear to you how the misleading would happen? Well, that's one of the functions of an independent reviewer, to see things the author is too close to see. If the article were to not say what he was charged with, but say that he was arrested for possession, the reader would have a model of the incident in their mind with a gap in it where the charge would be. Leaving room for the obvious tentative conjecture.

Copy a sufficiently large passage, and keep the structure of the original merely scuffed up by substituting "synonyms" and making obvious shifts of tense or the like — if the passage is long enough, damn right it's copyvio. Avoiding verbatim copying is not enough. The goal is to habitually write text that doesn't copy the words, phrases, or sentence structure of the sources.

My extended comment on your user talk about newsworthiness addressed stuff that happens a lot, as a general class of phenomena; it was worded to not depend on the specifics of this story. If what happened to him were exceptional enough, it wouldn't matter whether he's famous. The more famous he is, the lower the threshold for exceptionalism of the event, but there is always a threshold. And how exceptional the event becomes because of who he is, obviously depends on expectations about him. I'm open to being convinced this is a sufficiently exceptional event, but what I saw on the first review let me to believe we would be rightly laughed at for publishing it as if it were news. The very first thing I did when I read the title of this article, and then the lede, was laugh. In convincing me, some of the convincing would likely need to be convincing by the article itself. I'll see what the article looks like now.

You don't actually mean, I hope, to say "I don't like this review, so I want a different reviewer." Working cooperatively with a conscientious reviewer can produce great results (not for every individual article, obviously, but overall it pays). Treating the reviewer as an adversary has no up-side, especially if one successfully gets stuff published by doing an end-run (on balance, everybody loses). --Pi zero (talk) 07:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

My apologies if my comments came off as defensive. I thought the Newsworthy aspect was wrong, and did want a second opinion. I did not get it, as you have now passed this article, so now its moot. Phearson (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I did say if I were to be convinced, the article itself would have to do some of the convincing. I was pleasantly surprised by how well the added context in the article strengthened its case for newsworthiness. As my earlier criticism catalyzed that, I suppose the system worked well, at the price of a bit of behind-the-scenes, low-key interpersonal friction. --Pi zero (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1365086 [Passed]

Revision 1365086 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 08:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: This works for me. There's enough context, hanging off the specific event, to reinforce the newsworthiness — and if readers are inclined to lol somewhat at the headline/lede (as I was), we've enough context for them to laugh with us rather than at us. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 1365086 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 08:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: This works for me. There's enough context, hanging off the specific event, to reinforce the newsworthiness — and if readers are inclined to lol somewhat at the headline/lede (as I was), we've enough context for them to laugh with us rather than at us. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

It is his right to carry his medicine with him

If there is a person in this world who is suffering from pain, has a doctor prescribed medication of Oxycoton, or a heavy pain medicine that could be seen as an illegal drug if not held by the person who has the prescription issued to them. This is Snoop Dog's medication. He has a license for possession of medical marijuana, so that is his legal medicine. I believe that the Border Services were acting outside of their scope of practice and should be reprimanded accordingly. If someone crossed the border with oxycotton would they receive the same fine, be denied entrance into the country, and be scrutinized as Snoop Dog is being? I think that this is unjust and unfair practice and every border agency should look at the legal rights guaranteed by our legal rights. I see this as harassment and discrimination because of a disability or illness that requires his medication. Just because snoop is reknown for being a pot smoker does not open the door for border patrol agents to scrutinize Snoop and allow them to discriminate against his medical needs.