Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The summary of the bridgegate scandal added in Special:Diff/4563437 comes from the opinion, which is in the public domain, and thus is not a copyright violation
Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
@DannyS712: Just atm, there's nothing in the lede that clues in an international audience to what this case is about. It says "the Bridgegate scandal", which means nothing to an international audience, and "fraud", which could be almost anything. A very few words are needed, not a detailed explanation —it's the lede— but those few words have to get across to an international audience what all the fuss is about. --Pi zero (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
The reporter's assistance with revisions to the first two paragraphs was invaluable; thanks.
Re use of "Bridgegate" in the lede: On one hand, we ought when possible to resist a glib label for a news story; on the other hand, the label wouldn't mean anything to most international readers anyway. I eliminated it from the lede as from the headline, leaving it as part of the detailed account in the second paragraph. Having done so highlighted a related difficulty: the label was being used in the lede as a short substitute for details deferred to the next paragraph, but without the label the description seemed a bit weak to evoke the memory of the story even for readers who'd heard of it at the time (and we'd hope to do comparably for international readers). So I struggled to add just a dash of additional information to the description at the end of the first sentence; "George Washington Bridge" wasn't likely to work for international readers (nor possibly even for US readers), but NJ–Manhattan access might.
The phrase "ground to a halt" was presented as a direct quote, which is appropriate because it's really subjective assessment/description, but it wasn't clear who'd said it. Determining it was the court decision, spot-attribution neatly resolved that.
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.
The reporter's assistance with revisions to the first two paragraphs was invaluable; thanks.
Re use of "Bridgegate" in the lede: On one hand, we ought when possible to resist a glib label for a news story; on the other hand, the label wouldn't mean anything to most international readers anyway. I eliminated it from the lede as from the headline, leaving it as part of the detailed account in the second paragraph. Having done so highlighted a related difficulty: the label was being used in the lede as a short substitute for details deferred to the next paragraph, but without the label the description seemed a bit weak to evoke the memory of the story even for readers who'd heard of it at the time (and we'd hope to do comparably for international readers). So I struggled to add just a dash of additional information to the description at the end of the first sentence; "George Washington Bridge" wasn't likely to work for international readers (nor possibly even for US readers), but NJ–Manhattan access might.
The phrase "ground to a halt" was presented as a direct quote, which is appropriate because it's really subjective assessment/description, but it wasn't clear who'd said it. Determining it was the court decision, spot-attribution neatly resolved that.
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.
Done --Green Giant (talk) 13:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)