Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/Schmerber v. California"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Notecardforfree (Added review Egleston (MBTA station)) |
imported>Yoninah (to Prep 4) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | <noinclude>[[Category:Passed DYK nominations from June 2015]]<div style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> | |
| − | + | :''The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify this page.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|this nomination's talk page]], [[Talk:{{SUBPAGENAME}}|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 [[User:Yoninah|Yoninah]] ([[User talk:Yoninah|talk]]) 20:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)<br /> |
{{DYK conditions}} | {{DYK conditions}} | ||
====Schmerber v. California==== | ====Schmerber v. California==== | ||
{{DYK nompage links|nompage=Schmerber v. California|Schmerber v. California}} | {{DYK nompage links|nompage=Schmerber v. California|Schmerber v. California}} | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
* ... that some scholars fear the [[United States Supreme Court]]'s ruling in '''''[[Schmerber v. California]]''''' will one day be used to justify the involuntary [[Thought identification|mind reading]] of criminal suspects? | * ... that some scholars fear the [[United States Supreme Court]]'s ruling in '''''[[Schmerber v. California]]''''' will one day be used to justify the involuntary [[Thought identification|mind reading]] of criminal suspects? | ||
:* ''Reviewed'': [[Egleston (MBTA station)|Egleston]] | :* ''Reviewed'': [[Egleston (MBTA station)|Egleston]] | ||
:* | :* | ||
<small>5x expanded by [[User:Notecardforfree|Notecardforfree]] ([[User talk:Notecardforfree|talk]]). Self-nominated at 09:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC).</small> | <small>5x expanded by [[User:Notecardforfree|Notecardforfree]] ([[User talk:Notecardforfree|talk]]). Self-nominated at 09:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC).</small> | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | + | :[[File:Symbol confirmed.svg|16px]] Absolutely fascinating article and hook to back it up. 5X expansion within date, quality referencing and prose, length and QPQ satisfactory. Excellent piece of work. [[User:Gareth E Kegg|Gareth E Kegg]] ([[User talk:Gareth E Kegg|talk]]) 21:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)</div></noinclude><!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.--> | |
Latest revision as of 20:11, 7 July 2015
- 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 Yoninah (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Schmerber v. California
- ... that some scholars fear the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Schmerber v. California will one day be used to justify the involuntary mind reading of criminal suspects?
- Reviewed: Egleston
5x expanded by Notecardforfree (talk). Self-nominated at 09:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC).
Absolutely fascinating article and hook to back it up. 5X expansion within date, quality referencing and prose, length and QPQ satisfactory. Excellent piece of work. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)