User talk:HaeB/Short BLP controversy sections

Latest comment: 3 years ago by Schazjmd

HaeB: thanks again for your effort. Any chance of a rerun? (Maybe exclude "career" if possible?) –xenotalk 02:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Xeno: Happy to (running it again should be little work unless there is some unforeseen issue). Excluding "career" should be easy.
Any other search terms we should consider including while we're at it; say "scandal", "racist", "sexual", "drug", or "drunk"?
Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
HaeB: Yes please - those are good additions to look at! Schazjmd any other suggests? –xenotalk 10:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
None come to mind, xeno. It'll be interesting to see the new results. Schazjmd (talk) 13:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Xeno and Schazjmd: Updated - let me know how it goes.
By the way, it might also be fairly easy to restrict the search to sections without <ref>... citations. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
HaeB Might be useful as a dividing criteria, to more quickly highlight the BLP violations. –xenotalk 17:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, @HaeB:! I'll start on these today. Schazjmd (talk) 13:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thanks from me too. This one's unique, look at that External links section. –xenotalk 17:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
Whoa, I've never seen anything like that before! Schazjmd (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
Fun how adding "scandal" picked up so many romance novelists. Schazjmd (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
Scandalous! –xenotalk 17:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
Done with my review. I guesstimate I modified around 1/3 of the articles. Thanks, HaeB! Schazjmd (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Reply