Talk:Matt Stoller

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 13:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Matt Stoller believes that breaking up monopolies is “so central and so urgent that nearly any other cause or political relationship should be sacrificed in service of it”? Source: “ For many who knew Stoller or were familiar with his work, his boosting of Hawley was perhaps not surprising. Stoller is known for his dogmatic belief that taking on corporate power by breaking up companies that have gotten too big is the goal — so central and so urgent that nearly any other cause or political relationship should be sacrificed in service of it. His defense of Hawley, who had just a few years earlier become the first state attorney general to sue Google on antitrust grounds, was just the latest example.” Politico
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/On Abstinence from Eating Animals

Moved to mainspace by Thriley (talk). Self-nominated at 16:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Matt Stoller; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Freshly moved to mainspace, solid neutral content, properly sourced without copyvio. Hook is cited. The hook is OK, a little dry but on the problem of monopolies is discussed a lot, so that view may intrigue people enough to go read the article. I do not see strong material for another hook, but if anyone else can propose a catchier Alt, go for it! SeoR (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your review! Later today I am going to add a bit more to the article that I’ll use to make a more interesting hook. Thriley (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Did you manage to do so Thriley? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Not yet!! Will do so in the next few hours. Thriley (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

ALT1 ...that Matt Stoller’s 2019 book Goliath was described by Politico as the “foundational historical text” of the antitrust movement known as the New Brandeisian School? Thriley (talk) 01:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@SeoR: how does the ALT1 hook look?

@SeoR: are you available to review ALT1? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks for ping, and massive apologies, missed the Alt. Will review today. SeoR (talk) 13:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again, and reviewed last night, tried on a few people, ALT1 is good to go too. For myself and some test readers, the first hook worked better, but this one has some potential too - readers might be intrigued to read about a whole school of antitrust thought; on the other hand, some might find it a bit academic. The first hook, while still dry, is more general - many readers might be hooked by the idea that new monopolies are "central and urgent" to tackle. Either will do. SeoR (talk) 10:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)