Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/Circuit split"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>George Ho (fix redir) |
imported>Opabinia regalis (review; good to go) |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
--> | --> | ||
| − | :* | + | :* [[File:Symbol voting keep.svg|16px]] New enough (5x expanded on June 27 from a surprisingly tiny stub), long enough, no copyvio or close paraphrasing. AGF hooks sourced to print sources (but easily confirmed elsewhere online). QPQ not needed. I prefer the first hook for being more specific and for making clear that this is a US topic. Good to go. [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] ([[User talk:Opabinia regalis|talk]]) 06:09, 14 July 2015 (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 06:10, 14 July 2015
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Circuit split
- ... that scholars suggest the Supreme Court of the United States is more likely to grant review of a case to resolve a circuit split than for any other reason?
- ALT1:... that circuit splits may lead to economic inefficiency?
5x expanded by Notecardforfree (talk). Self-nominated at 19:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC).
New enough (5x expanded on June 27 from a surprisingly tiny stub), long enough, no copyvio or close paraphrasing. AGF hooks sourced to print sources (but easily confirmed elsewhere online). QPQ not needed. I prefer the first hook for being more specific and for making clear that this is a US topic. Good to go. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)