Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/United States v. Cotterman"

From blackwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Kaffyne
(Created nomination)
 
imported>Vanished user adhmfdfmykrdyr
Line 21: Line 21:
 
:*<!--Make first comment here-->
 
:*<!--Make first comment here-->
  
 +
* [[File:Symbol confirmed.svg|16px]]  At time of nomination, qualified based on length and newness: Prose size (text only): 4932 characters (800 words) "readable prose size". Article created by Shaonbarman on March 1, 2012.  Plagiarism check shows no concerns: [http://toolserver.org/~dcoetzee/duplicationdetector/compare.php?url1=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FUnited_States_v._Cotterman&url2=http%3A%2F%2Fcyberlawcases.com%2F2011%2F04%2F01%2Fthe-boundless-border-search-exception%2F&minwords=2&minchars=13 here], [http://toolserver.org/~dcoetzee/duplicationdetector/compare.php?url1=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FUnited_States_v._Cotterman&url2=http%3A%2F%2Fcircuit9.blogspot.com%2F2011%2F04%2Fcase-o-week-betty-balks-at-broad-border.html&minwords=2&minchars=13 here], [http://toolserver.org/~dcoetzee/duplicationdetector/compare.php?url1=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FUnited_States_v._Cotterman&url2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jetlaw.org%2F%3Fp%3D6161&minwords=2&minchars=13 here], [http://toolserver.org/~dcoetzee/duplicationdetector/compare.php?url1=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FUnited_States_v._Cotterman&url2=http%3A%2F%2Fvolokh.com%2F2011%2F01%2F17%2Fupdate-on-united-states-v-cotterman-ninth-circuit-case-applying-the-border-search-exception-to-computers%2F&minwords=2&minchars=13 here]. Text as it relates to the fact which the hook appears to be pulling from is supported by inline citations.  Hook is properly formatted and neutral enough.
 +
* [[File:Symbol question.svg|16px]]  Article is not completely supported by inline references.  At least one source is a law blog.
 +
* [[File:Symbol question.svg|16px]]  Not sure hook is supported by text as "border search exception" is not a phrase that is connected to the text.  Text says: "In the majority opinion, Judge Tallman agreed with the Government that border search doctrine allowed property to be transported to secondary site for examination. But, he did also state that the Government cannot seize property and hold it for "weeks, months, years on a whim", and therefore the courts will continue to determine whether searches and seizures are reasonable on a case-to-case basis"
 +
*  [[File:Symbol possible vote.svg|16px]] Uncited content that strikes me as big potential BLP violation, including naming names related to child pornography. --[[User:LauraHale|LauraHale]] ([[User talk:LauraHale|talk]]) 00:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 +
 +
[[File:Symbol question.svg|16px]]  Article has uncited bits that need citations.  Big concern as these are likely [[WP:BLP]] violations.  The proposed hook is not supported by the text.  Alt hook needed or text altered to support the hook. --[[User:LauraHale|LauraHale]] ([[User talk:LauraHale|talk]]) 00:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  
 
}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->
 
}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->

Revision as of 00:34, 15 March 2012

United States v. Cotterman

Created/expanded by Shaonbarman (talk). Nominated by Kaffyne (talk) at 05:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Symbol confirmed.svg At time of nomination, qualified based on length and newness: Prose size (text only): 4932 characters (800 words) "readable prose size". Article created by Shaonbarman on March 1, 2012. Plagiarism check shows no concerns: here, here, here, here. Text as it relates to the fact which the hook appears to be pulling from is supported by inline citations. Hook is properly formatted and neutral enough.
  • Symbol question.svg Article is not completely supported by inline references. At least one source is a law blog.
  • Symbol question.svg Not sure hook is supported by text as "border search exception" is not a phrase that is connected to the text. Text says: "In the majority opinion, Judge Tallman agreed with the Government that border search doctrine allowed property to be transported to secondary site for examination. But, he did also state that the Government cannot seize property and hold it for "weeks, months, years on a whim", and therefore the courts will continue to determine whether searches and seizures are reasonable on a case-to-case basis"
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Uncited content that strikes me as big potential BLP violation, including naming names related to child pornography. --LauraHale (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Symbol question.svg Article has uncited bits that need citations. Big concern as these are likely WP:BLP violations. The proposed hook is not supported by the text. Alt hook needed or text altered to support the hook. --LauraHale (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)