# Talk:Rector v. Major League Baseball Advanced Media

I'm concerned about the title of this article. No reliable sources have called this case "Rector v. MLB". Is there any better title that could be used? Kevin (aka L235 ·  t ·  c) 23:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Does "Rector v. Major League Baseball Advanced Media" sound like an acceptable title? Kevin (aka L235 ·  t ·  c) 05:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I would not oppose this new title. Yousou (Complain) 14:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
I've moved it. Best, Kevin (aka L235 ·  t ·  c) 17:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rector v. MLB/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Courcelles (talk · contribs) 01:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

An interesting little read, I'll have some comments shortly. Courcelles (talk) 01:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Publication date for ref 7 is wrong.
Still wrong. Courcelles (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Ref 4; don't abbreviate newspapers' names
Better now. Courcelles (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
"it was covered by a number of media organizations worldwide."  One article in Australia?  Got any more citations for worldwide coverage?
Better now Courcelles (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
What makes ref 12, a Wordpress blog, reliable?
Looks to be gone. Courcelles (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
"Worst Lawsuit Ever" is only in caps because it was part of the title of the article, we don't need to follow that here.
Fixed. Courcelles (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
"After the decision, legal practitioners"  One person's opinion, unless you've got other sources.
Still an issue, attribute the position, don't handwave towards multiple "legal practitioners"  Or even better yet, lose this sentence which seems to be a fringe position of one man on a blog as the article stands. Courcelles (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Both refs 15 and 16 have authors and publication dates available.  Ref 10 has an author available.
Still an issue, see now also ref 8. Courcelles (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Ref 2?  Reliable or not?
Still don't think this is an RS. Courcelles (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Ref 14 is explicitly about postseason tickets.  This was not a postseason game.
Better now. Courcelles (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I'[m really worried about the referencing here, which seems overly reliant on blogs for the analysis. Courcelles (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
@Courcelles: I have done my best to answer your points and I think it is ready for another look now.  The C of E   God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
My responses in-line. Courcelles (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
@Courcelles: I have made more alterations.  The C of E   God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Last thing left appears to be the legal practitioners claim about deserving disbarment, which is sourced to one guy's blog. Courcelles (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
@Courcelles: I have removed that now.  The C of E   God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Good, then this one passes.  Promoting. Courcelles (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)