Talk:Jury convicts Minnesota lawmaker Nicole Mitchell of burglary

Addition of key fact

I believe the article was previously missing a critical piece of information from the case, namely the existence of body cam footage in which Mitchell made potentially incriminating statements that the prosecutor is leveraging. I added a full paragraph in this diff.

What are everyone's thoughts (contributors and/or reviewers) of that addition and if it disqualifies me as an independent reviewer for this article?

@Heavy Water, RockerballAustralia, Bddpaux, Gryllida: you are welcome to do a full review of the article as-is or weigh in on whether or not I disqualified myself. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 16:51, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Appreciate it. Lofi Gurl (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Any thoughts on whether my edit disqualifies me as reviewer?

On one hand, one could argue it does: I added new material (even though it was already in the sources) that helps shape the reader’s understanding, which could count as editorial involvement.

On the other hand, it might fall within a reviewer’s role: the additions were purely factual and sourced, intended to address a gap and ensure the article presents a neutral picture.

I’m also curious, was the part about the body cam something you chose to leave out (maybe you didn’t feel it was central to the story), or was it something that just didn’t make it into your draft?Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 22:09, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

As for whether your edits disqualify you, that's probably something to ask some of the other reviewers. I don't know. It accounts for maybe 20-30% of the article's content.

The bodycam info wasn't intentionally left out of my draft, I was perhaps working too quickly. Thanks. Lofi Gurl (talk) 22:13, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

It's actually only 13% of the article content (I added 409 bytes with the paragraph and the article is currently 3,063 bytes). But not to say that still isn't a small amount.

If you were to put a reviewer hat on, even temporarily, what would be your input then? ツ

These are the kinds of issues I think we need to start wrestling with if we truly intend to reform the review process. Maybe we've become too strict on certain parts of the process and that is ultimately slowing down the whole process.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 00:49, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

If the ultimate goal is to increase the overall number of published articles and to get them published in a timely manner, then I don't really see any harm in you reviewing it if it's only 13%. I mostly just tried to improve as a writer to reduce the amount of work reviewers need to put into my drafts, and reduce the need for revisions. But newer contributors may not possess the same ability to quickly revise articles that some of us maybe do. Lofi Gurl (talk) 01:40, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Michael.C.Wright: Sorry for the late response. Yes, adding content is a red line for a reviewer's independence. But you were trying to get an an article published amid an effort to get the project shut down for inactivity. I get it. Heavy Water (talk) 13:26, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Copyviolation percentage possibly????

25.4% BigKrow (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Earwig flags five phrases in the article, excluding the source titles. Two of those are direct quotes, leaving the following:

• "...felony first-degree burglary and possession of burglary or theft tools"
• "...Becker County Attorney Brian McDonald ..."
• "...minimum of 180 days in jail..."

The first is a formal statement of charges, the second is a proper name and title, and the third is common statutory language. All three are factual, formulaic, or public domain in nature.

These flagged phrases are not substantial enough, individually or together, to constitute WN:Plagiarism. As long as the rest of the article is written in original language and sources are properly attributed, there’s no issue.

Earwig results are only a guide, not a definitive verdict. WN:Plagiarism is ultimately judged qualitatively.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 20:38, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I know I just like to help by listing the copyvio percentage roughly? @Michael.C.Wright BigKrow (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Apologies BigKrow (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Nothing to apologize for. It can be confusing and it's good that you're checking.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 21:29, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Review of revision 4870538 [Passed]

Revision 4870538 of this article has been reviewed by Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 13:13, 24 July 2025 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: As part of the review process, I made several changes to ensure factual accuracy, proper attribution, and adherence to our style and neutrality guidelines. These included clarifying the exact charges, correcting the description of Mitchell's defense, refining attributions, removing an unsourced claim about the judge, and adjusting phrasing for clarity. See the edit history for full details. I also added a paragraph summarizing the prosecution's use of body camera footage and closing arguments, based on material from the cited sources. While this addition aimed to restore balance and improve reader understanding, I recognize it may cross into development. I attempted to consult with other reviewers about this concern, but received no response, and no others have been actively reviewing since the SPTF announcement. In the interest of moving a neutral and complete article forward, I have proceeded with publication. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4870538 of this article has been reviewed by Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 13:13, 24 July 2025 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: As part of the review process, I made several changes to ensure factual accuracy, proper attribution, and adherence to our style and neutrality guidelines. These included clarifying the exact charges, correcting the description of Mitchell's defense, refining attributions, removing an unsourced claim about the judge, and adjusting phrasing for clarity. See the edit history for full details. I also added a paragraph summarizing the prosecution's use of body camera footage and closing arguments, based on material from the cited sources. While this addition aimed to restore balance and improve reader understanding, I recognize it may cross into development. I attempted to consult with other reviewers about this concern, but received no response, and no others have been actively reviewing since the SPTF announcement. In the interest of moving a neutral and complete article forward, I have proceeded with publication. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.