Talk:US jury finds Proud Boys members guilty of seditious conspiracy, other charges

Notes

This is pretty short and could obviously be expanded to a much longer article, but it felt like a lot of work just to rehash the events of January 6 and perhaps insert some of the in-court arguments. I'd rather get this out in a timely manner, but other editors are free to expand it.
I do need to mention that I determined that it was the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and not the Superior Court of the District of Columbia by using the judge's name and searching it. The sources don't actually mention it. This can also be verified via Wikipedia (although not considered reliable). Cheers, SVTCobra 19:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, it is noted in the sources to be a federal case, also. Heavy Water (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Image

I know the image you selected was from the insurrection (or whatever we are calling it these days) and if the article was longer, I'd include it and more. But Enrique Tarrio is the key person in this story. This is why his name is most of the headlines. He was allegedly the link to Trump via Roger Stone. So I do think Tarrio is a better image, unless you can find a way to include both images without the layout being awful. Cheers, --SVTCobra 00:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Review of revision 4725064 [Passed]

Revision 4725064 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I didn't see anything about this being a partial verdict. By all accounts, the next step is scheduled to be their sentencing in July. After experimenting with some methods, I used <gallery> to work in the images. It actually is an improvement to have both, I think, as the article is so short. 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 4725064 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I didn't see anything about this being a partial verdict. By all accounts, the next step is scheduled to be their sentencing in July. After experimenting with some methods, I used <gallery> to work in the images. It actually is an improvement to have both, I think, as the article is so short. 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.

You were right about the partial verdict. After you removed, I went back to see, and it seems the jury tried earlier to come back with a partial but the judge sent them back. I totally misread that. While the word "partial" wasn't in the source, that is the way to link it, but again, I misread. Thanks for catching that. That's why we peer review. Cheers, --SVTCobra 00:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

For Pezzola, yeah. Agreed. Heavy Water (talk) 02:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)