Talk:Raw Story

message: Editor 98.46.111.30, who remarks he/she is a "disinterested but professional academic editor/writer (retired prof); only concern here is rigor/verifiability", left the article a mess of half-done research and research notes (which don't belong in the article itself).
There was some original research added, especially phrases or sentences to which the user tagged as 'citation needed' -- so why add those at all?
Wikipedia does not need to record a blow-by-blow account of every action related to company acquisitions. That would be WP:UNDUE. Just state that something was bought, maybe a reason given why, record a date, and be done with it.
Edit summary complaint about no citation for people in infobox -- turns out it was in the body under section "Staff", but another editor had removed all the other people except for two. Current staff are found in the masthead which is cited in the body.
Edit summary complaint about naming a reference "HIV1"; I refer user to the domain name of the URL of the citation. There was probably an HIV2 which subsequently was deleted. Keep in mind the company owner advocates for HIV prevention so 'shivers up thy spine'... I refer editor to Wikipedia is not censored.
I will look at some of the complaints and fix a few, but if editor feels the need to add huge chunks of content, then I suggest approaching it with smaller bites. For example, fix citation formats in one edit (they'll probably be just fine), and add content in a separate edit. I hate to remove a series of a new editor's good faith edits, but I cannot fix this mess. Rollback it is. Grorp (talk) 08:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rollback explanation 

message: * Specific text to be added or removed: In 2024, Raw Story won a SABEW Best in Business reporting award for its “Lawmakers, Law Breakers” series, which exposed Democratic and Republican lawmakers who violated U.S. conflict of interest and insider trading laws. It received honorable mentions in two other categories. The series also won the first place inaugural ION Award in 2023, which called the nonpartisan investigation “fair, bold, specific, and thoroughly documented.”
* Reason for the change: It's important for readers to understand that Raw Story has increasing authority in its Congressional coverage to better judge Raw Story as a journalistic outlet. These awards are valuable for readers' understanding because the series was notably nonpartisan; it reported on both Democrats and Republicans who violated the STOCK Act. The Best in Business awards are very competitive and the New York Times, Bloomberg and Wall Street Journal were also among the winners. Raw Story also won the Illinois Women's Press Association Award for the Lawmakers, Lawbreakers series, but it seemed superfluous to add to Wikipedia. A link to that, though, is included in the references section.
* References supporting change: https://sabew.org/contestsawards/best-in-business/ https://www.rawstory.com/congress-stock-act-violations/ https://sharylattkisson.com/2023/10/announcing-winners-of-the-inaugural-ion-awards/ https://www.iwpa.org/iwpa-announces-2024-mate-e-palmer-professional-communications-contest-winners/
JByrne404 (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: .    ▶ I am Grorp ◀  06:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks @Grorp! One quick additional request, since it falls in the same section. Raw Story also won an EPPY Award for best/news political blog in 2023 -- link here: https://www.eppyawards.com/ . Perhaps a note might also be included in the section to indicate the EPPY Award is an Editor & Publisher award, so "EPPY (Editor & Publisher) Award," when it's first mentioned? Thanks for any help you can provide. JByrne404 (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  .    ▶ I am Grorp ◀  02:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  New awards