From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
|
|
|||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
|
* {{DYKmake|Bruce Lehrmann|TarnishedPath|subpage=Bruce Lehrmann}} |
* {{DYKmake|Bruce Lehrmann|TarnishedPath|subpage=Bruce Lehrmann}} |
||
|
–> |
–> |
||
|
* {{DYK checklist |
|||
|
* <!– REPLACE THIS LINE TO WRITE the FIRST COMMENT, KEEPING THE ASTERISK * –> |
|||
|
<!–Usage instructions: If the article/nomination is compliant with the relevant guideline, put “y”; if not, state what the problem is —> |
|||
|
|newness = y |
|||
|
|length = y |
|||
|
|eligibilityother = |
|||
|
|sourced = y |
|||
|
|neutral = y |
|||
|
|plagiarismfree = A section in this article seems to be copied almost verbatim from The Guardian. ([https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/apr/23/bruce-lehrmann-defamation-case-channel-ten-legal-costs-brittany-higgins-the-project-spotlight-ntwnfb ])</br>Text from The Guardian (Amanda Meade): The submission, prepared by Dr Matt Collins KC, argued it was an abuse of process because Lehrmann came to the federal court seeking substantial damages when he knew the allegations he complained about were true. “In summary, Mr Lehrmann brought this proceeding on a deliberately wicked and calculated basis,” Ten said. </br>Text from the article: The submission, prepared by Matt Collins, argued it was an abuse of process because Lehrmann came to the Federal Court seeking substantial damages when he knew the allegations he complained about were true. “Mr Lehrmann brought this proceeding on a deliberately wicked and calculated basis.”</br>I know that this is a relatively minor flaw in an article otherwise unblemished (from what I can see) of copyvios, but I don’t think it’s necessary to copy directly here and I think it would be worth changing. |
|||
|
|policyother = |
|||
|
|hookcited = y |
|||
|
|hookinterest = y |
|||
|
|hookother = |
|||
|
|picfree = NA |
|||
|
|picused = |
|||
|
|picclear = |
|||
|
|qpq = Y |
|||
|
|status = ? |
|||
|
|comments = This is my first review, so I’ve accordingly picked a topic I know a decent bit about, but I would nevertheless appreciate a second opinion. The infobox saying “known for rape in Parliament House (civil finding)” could potentially be a POV issue (one could argue Lehrmann is most well known for being accused of rape), but the “civil finding” and inline explanation, I think, makes it acceptable. ALT0 is acceptable (although I should note, as I’m sure you know, “controversy” and “collateral damage” are quotes from the judge, and I’m unsure about putting them in wikivoice), but I personally think ALT1 is more hooky. However, I think it suffers a bit from stilted phrasing, it could be somewhat unclear that “made the mistake of coming back for his hat” refers to Lehrmann given the omitted dots. Could something like “[h]aving escaped the lion’s den, [Bruce] Lehrmann made the mistake of coming back for his hat” work? |
|||
|
|sign = –[[User:LivelyRatification|LivelyRatification]] ([[User talk:LivelyRatification|talk]]) 11:20, 18 September 2025 (UTC) |
|||
|
}} |
|||
|
}}<!–Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.–> |
}}<!–Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.–> |
||
|
{{Pending DYK biographies}} |
{{Pending DYK biographies}} |
||
Latest revision as of 11:20, 18 September 2025
Bruce Lehrmann
Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 11 past nominations.
TarnishedPathtalk 06:58, 3 September 2025 (UTC).
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing:
- Neutral:
- Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
– A section in this article seems to be copied almost verbatim from The Guardian. ([1])
Text from The Guardian (Amanda Meade): The submission, prepared by Dr Matt Collins KC, argued it was an abuse of process because Lehrmann came to the federal court seeking substantial damages when he knew the allegations he complained about were true. “In summary, Mr Lehrmann brought this proceeding on a deliberately wicked and calculated basis,” Ten said.
Text from the article: The submission, prepared by Matt Collins, argued it was an abuse of process because Lehrmann came to the Federal Court seeking substantial damages when he knew the allegations he complained about were true. “Mr Lehrmann brought this proceeding on a deliberately wicked and calculated basis.”
I know that this is a relatively minor flaw in an article otherwise unblemished (from what I can see) of copyvios, but I don’t think it’s necessary to copy directly here and I think it would be worth changing.
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
Overall: 
This is my first review, so I’ve accordingly picked a topic I know a decent bit about, but I would nevertheless appreciate a second opinion. The infobox saying “known for rape in Parliament House (civil finding)” could potentially be a POV issue (one could argue Lehrmann is most well known for being accused of rape), but the “civil finding” and inline explanation, I think, makes it acceptable. ALT0 is acceptable (although I should note, as I’m sure you know, “controversy” and “collateral damage” are quotes from the judge, and I’m unsure about putting them in wikivoice), but I personally think ALT1 is more hooky. However, I think it suffers a bit from stilted phrasing, it could be somewhat unclear that “made the mistake of coming back for his hat” refers to Lehrmann given the omitted dots. Could something like “[h]aving escaped the lion’s den, [Bruce] Lehrmann made the mistake of coming back for his hat” work? —LivelyRatification (talk) 11:20, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
