Talk:US Supreme Court overturns fraud convictions in Kelly v. United States

Notes

• 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

--DannyS712 (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Lede

@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)

I clarified that the scandal was relating to traffic chaos; the articles and opinion just say fraud --DannyS712 (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm available on IRC if you have questions --DannyS712 (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Review of revision 4563551 [Passed]

Revision 4563551 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by 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.

Revision 4563551 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by 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.

Image?

Just wondering if anyone is willing to sight the edit. @Acagastya, Green Giant, Gryllida:. --Pi zero (talk) 13:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Done --Green Giant (talk) 13:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)