Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>SporkBot m (Replace a deprecated template (*mp)) |
imported>Jonesey95 |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{#if:yes|<noinclude>[[Category:Passed DYK nominations from January 2013]]<div style="background-color:#F3F9FF; margin:2em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA"> | {{#if:yes|<noinclude>[[Category:Passed DYK nominations from January 2013]]<div style="background-color:#F3F9FF; margin:2em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA"> | ||
| − | :{{DYKF|11}} <i><b><span style="color:red">The following is an archived discussion</span></b> of <b>[[Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl]]</b>'s <b>[[Template:NewDYKnomination|DYK nomination]]</b>. <b>Please do not modify this page</b>. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived <b>nomination</b>"s [[Template talk:Did you know nominations/Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl|(<b>talk</b>) <b>page</b>]], the nominated <b>article</b>'s [[Talk:Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl|(<b>talk</b>) <b>page</b>]], or the {{DYK blue}} [[Wikipedia talk:Did you know|(<b>talk</b>) <b>page</b>]]. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. <span style="color:red"><b>No further edits should be made to this page</b>.</span> <span style="float:right">See the <b>[[WP:TPG|talk page guidelines]]</b> for [[WP:ARCHIVE|(<b>more</b>)]] information.</ | + | :{{DYKF|11}} <i><b><span style="color:red">The following is an archived discussion</span></b> of <b>[[Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl]]</b>'s <b>[[Template:NewDYKnomination|DYK nomination]]</b>. <b>Please do not modify this page</b>. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived <b>nomination</b>"s [[Template talk:Did you know nominations/Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl|(<b>talk</b>) <b>page</b>]], the nominated <b>article</b>'s [[Talk:Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl|(<b>talk</b>) <b>page</b>]], or the {{DYK blue}} [[Wikipedia talk:Did you know|(<b>talk</b>) <b>page</b>]]. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. <span style="color:red"><b>No further edits should be made to this page</b>.</span> <span style="float:right">See the <b>[[WP:TPG|talk page guidelines]]</b> for [[WP:ARCHIVE|(<b>more</b>)]] information.</span></i>{{clear}} |
The result was: <b>promoted</b> by [[User:Miyagawa|Miyagawa]] ([[User talk:Miyagawa|talk]]) 10:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC).<br /> | The result was: <b>promoted</b> by [[User:Miyagawa|Miyagawa]] ([[User talk:Miyagawa|talk]]) 10:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC).<br /> | ||
Latest revision as of 03:39, 16 October 2018
The following is an archived discussion of Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know
(talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.
The result was: promoted by Miyagawa (talk) 10:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC).
Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl
- ...
that the United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case on the Indian Child Welfare Act for only the second time in Supreme Court history?
Created by GregJackP (talk). Self nom at 01:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment, the hook has to link to Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl somewhere. Perhaps "... that Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl is only the second case on the Indian Child Welfare Act taken on by the United States Supreme Court?" If any of my terminology is non-standard, feel free to improve. Chris857 (talk) 01:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
ALT1 ... that Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl is only the second case on the Indian Child Welfare Act taken on by the United States Supreme Court?"
Needs full review. Chris857 (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
This article is new enough and long enough, the only problem is with the hook. I can see no mention in the article of this being the second ICWA case taken on by the Supreme Court. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've just put a notice on GregJackP's talk page. While the page says he's retired (posted February 6), he made a couple of edits today, so I think we should allow a full week from now for a response on the issue. Alternatively, someone here could try to address the "second ICWA case" issue in the article/sourcing, or propose a new hook that avoids the "second" part altogether. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
The hook is now supported by an inline citation and this nomination is ready to go. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)