# Talk:Nobody's Victim

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nobody's Victim/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs) 01:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello Bilorv, I'll be taking up the review for this nomination as well and will present it to you shortly. I hope you find my feedback helpful. Tayi Arajakate Talk 01:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the review, Tayi Arajakate; I've addressed your comments so far. — Bilorv (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Bilorv, the article more or less meets the GA criteria and I'd promote it but I have one query. Can you see if Goldberg's image is properly tagged? It says it's in the public domain but I can't seem to find the licensing on the source anywhere. Tayi Arajakate Talk 05:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
@Tayi Arajakate: yes, if you go to the Vimeo link then there is a public domain release there. For my device, you have to click on "More" just under the title (next to the "4 years ago") and hover over the license symbol. This is an official video by the Jewish Film Institute. — Bilorv (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, I'll go ahead and promote the article now. Tayi Arajakate Talk 13:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


#### Comments
"... swatting under her name", just to clarify this refers to Thompson using Rossi's name to swat other people, right? If it's Thompson swatting Rossi then the wording should be changed.
Yep, that's the right reading: Thompson called swats of third parties in under Rossi's name. — Bilorv (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
"... ran a website dedicated to posting non-consensual pornography ...", does this involve sexual assault in pornography or is it non-consensual publishing of sexual acts? Could be made clearer.
"Non-consensual pornography" is the technical term that I think is most objective: sometimes "revenge porn" is used to describe it, but that has an obvious implication of motive ("revenge") that is often not the case. It describes any sexual content that is published without the consent of all people featured; this may have been made with/without knowledge of the person featured. It is not (generally) professional porn, but its distribution and consumption makes it pornography. I've linked "non-consensual pornography" to revenge porn on first mention (which isn't ideal, but hopefully improves understanding). — Bilorv (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
"The online disinhibition effect and mob psychology may contribute to their behavior", reads like a statement in wiki-voice. Could change the wording to attribute it to the book. Some of the other sentences are similar, for example the paragraph on "Porn Troll Sex Police" reads like a narration independent of the book and the sentences following "Abuse by Harvey Weinstein ..." reads like it's independent of its chapter. This isn't particularly a big issue since there is the context but still could be made clearer.
Yeah, I see your point: I think it comes from trying to write with exceeding concision (my first draft of the synopsis was over 1500 words long). For the first quote, this is in wiki-voice: Goldberg is unequivocal that online disinhibition / mob psychology does contribute to their behavior. I've reworded bits to try to improve this, but I don't think I can fix the problem entirely without beginning every sentence with "In the book, Goldberg writes that ...". — Bilorv (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
In, "... she lost autonomy after drinking a shot he gave her", the wording of "to lose autonomy" may not be easily understood. Could it be improved with something like "lost consciousness", "drugged", "lost autonomy after drinking a spiked shot", etc?
Ah, the problem here is that I'm trying to convey the implication of being spiked, but it is not a firm conclusion by Goldberg. The most relevant passage is: When I returned to the table, I found he'd ordered us another round. He smiled and slid a shot glass of liquor toward me. After that, things got mushy. / I remember the rest of the night as a series of hazy snapshots. (p.213). I think this implication should just be avoided altogether, and I've now averted it with She was raped on a first date with a doctor and, during the act .... — Bilorv (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Are the chapters in the synopsis in the same order as in the book? If not, they should probably be so. The starting portion of the section should mention how many chapters there are if the book gives numbers to its chapters.
They're in order. There's an introduction, nine numbered chapters and a conclusion (plus some back matter). The synopsis now opens Nobody's Victim has an introduction, nine chapters and a conclusion., which is perhaps a bit abrupt, but I don't know how to integrate it in more seamlessly. — Bilorv (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
The citations with bundled refs have their first refs appear as a heading instead of a point like the rest.
Looks like InternetArchiveBot's doing. Now fixed. — Bilorv (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
The interview quotes about the importance of the book and the typology doesn't quite seem to fit in a sub-section called writing process, so perhaps the name could be modified? The first one could probably work well as second sentence in the introduction to the background section or even as the second sentence in legal cases subsection.
Moved the first one per suggestion. Does renaming "Writing process" to just "Writing" address the second? — Bilorv (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
I think that might be better, yes. Tayi Arajakate Talk 04:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
"... and part of the #MeToo movement" doesn't flow well in its sentence, the length of it makes it somewhat confusing as to what it . Could the sentence be divided into two or reworded otherwise?
Split into two sentences. — Bilorv (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
The "relatedly" in the last sentence doesn't belong.
Removed. — Bilorv (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
In the sentence in the lead, "... Goldberg had not previously spoke ..." should use spoken.
Fixed. — Bilorv (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
"She also represented five women who were sexually abused by Harvey Weinstein." Should probably specify that it's in the book.
Added "... a topic covered in Nobody's Victim". — Bilorv (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
In the lead and body, the Grindr case and the school case are both refered to as havving recieved national media attention alternatively which looks like an inconsistency. Since both of them recieved national media attention could it be specified for both in the lead and the body?
I think "national" was specified for both in the body, and now is in the lead. — Bilorv (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)


#### Assessment
Comprehension: The comprehension is good.  Pass

Verifiability: The article is verifiable. Pass

Comprehensiveness: The article is adequately comprehensive. Pass

Neutrality: The article is neutral. Pass

Stability: The article is stable. Pass

Illustration: The article is well illustrated. Pass