Talk:United States v. McMahon/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Mikehawk10 (talk · contribs) 04:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mikehawk10

Hello! I'm going to give this article a more thorough look through. One thing off the bat: I'm seeing a reference to This Website to (partially) source the testimony of a still-living person, and it doesn't look like a reliable site on its own. The reference adjacent to it also doesn't seem to explicitly support that Hogan was the main prosecutor witness, nor that he was the biggest star of WWF. I'm going to try to go through the rest of the sources to ensure that it meets the verifiability criterion, but this article looks like it will need improvements before it can get the go-ahead for GA. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into this more, there are additional issues with many of the citations, and I'm going to put the article review on hold as a result. Some examples that I'm including are below:

The article currently cites a 1994 NYT piece describing the trian of McMahon in the background section to support the statement that In 1991, Dr George Zahorian, a Pennsylvania doctor who had worked as a ringside doctor for the WWF, had been convicted of illegally supplying anabolic steroids. At his trial, he revealed that he had supplied steroids to the WWF and their wrestlers, specifically to Vince McMahon's office at Titan Towers. The article doesn't actually mention what Zahorian said at the U.S. v Zahorian trial.
The statement that when McMahon believed that he was going to be indicted, he closed down the World Bodybuilding Federation that he owned is attached to this source, which states that When rumors that McMahon was going to be prosecuted, at the end of 1992, the promoter advised his partners that the WBF was going to disappear, and practically all the allusions to said company were eliminated in the following days. There's an WP:OR concern here, since the article doesn't actually provide any description of McMahon's belief on whether or not he would be indicted.
The statement that As a result of this testimony at Zahorian's trial, McMahon was indicted by the FBI in 1993. is unsupported by its citation, a 1993 NYT article. The NYT piece mentions that The primary case against McMahon was apparently developed with the cooperation of Dr. George Zahorian 3d, a Pennsylvania physician who was listed in the indictment as an unindicted co-conspirator. Zahorian was convicted of steroid distribution in 1991 after a Federal trial in Pennsylvania, in which he testified that he had supplied steroids to Hulk Hogan and other W.W.F wrestlers. This does not say that the testimony at Zahorian's trial is the cause of McMahon's conviction, but instead that Zahorian's cooperation was key in establishing the case. The piece also doesn't mention the FBI whatsoever, though it does mention that McMahon was indicted in Brooklyn, and another source cited later says that McMahon was indicted by a U.S. Attorney by the name of Zachary Carter. The existing sentence in the nominated article, therefore, seems to be either WP:OR or misinterpretation of the source itself.
The sentence in the nominated article The United States government brought six charges against McMahon; however, three of the six were thrown out of court before the full trial appears to have the incorrect citation attached to it. The current cited news article doesn't appear to say that three of six were thrown out of court before the full trial, though it comments that only one charge went to the jury. Another source currently cited in the article is similar to this in its description, saying that "two charges" were dropped right before they went to the jury. Finally, this source from the Miami Herald is very specific regarding that there were three charges. The citation, which is placed at the end of the following sentence, should be copied to support this sentence as well.
There's a statement that they suspended it [steroid] in 1996 due to cost, attributed to this source, which in turn doesn't say it in its own voice but instead quotes Linda McMahon as saying that cost was amonng the factors that led to the suspension of testing. This should probably be attributed to her and more fully expanded upon; it's a bit misleading as of now.
There's a statement that Lisa McMahon had nothing to with the steroid trial, which might be true, but it doesn't appear to be supported by this NY Times source, which doesn't appear to mention the trial whatsoever. An affirmative source would be needed for that.
There has recently been a citation inserted to The Sportster, which in many ways feels like BuzzFeed but is targeted towards a different niche. I'm a little iffy on whether or not this would be a WP:NEWSORG, and the article cited itself appears to be a list of the author's opinions about times Hulk Hogan helped/hurt the industry.

I've tried to be thorough, but I can't guarantee that this is an extensive listing of verifiability/verification issues. Regarding the other pillars of it being a good article, the article appears to be neutral, of significant breadth, well written in a technical sense, and reasonably illustrated. In the meantime, until these issues are fixed, the article review is on hold. Please keep in mind that, as much of the information in the article applies to living people, there are special considerations for what constitutes a reliable source in this context. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. I will try to take a look at these ina few days. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The C of E: No problem! Looking into the topic a bit more, there seems to be a bit more to add to the consequences section that's available in coverage that occurred while Linda McMahon ran for Senator in Connecticut. There also appears to have been a focus on the trial in an episode of Dark Side of the Ring but it's not clear to me that the episode has been published yet. This Vice source might also be helpful in expanding that section. It's probably worthy of a mention in the article. Academic sources also exist for this; there's an article in a law journal that appears to also describe some of the legal consequences of the trial at a high level, as well as the effect on the reputation of the WWF. There's also a piece from slate that mentions that the trial had something to do with a wrestlemania plot in 2003, but I'm not in tune enough with what sorts of websites are reliable for this information to get more in-depth info. It might be good practice to expand the consequences section to incorporate some of this stuff, but up to you on the extent to which you wish to incorporate it. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikehawk10: I think I have managed to address the points you have raised. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikehawk10:? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 05:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It appears Mikehawk10 has not edited since 4 July... Regards Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 17:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spy-circle: It has been noticed, that's why the GA admins put a second opinion tag on it. Would you be able to offer that second opinion please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The C of E. I apologize for my unannounced absence. I'm still stuck on the breadth; the section on the media portrayals seems a bit small, but it honestly might be as much as the RS have covered. Do you have any more information in that sphere?— Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging The C of E. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging The C of E. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed