Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/Foster v. Chatman"

From blackwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Wugapodes
(changed alt1)
imported>Notecardforfree
(ALT1 is good to go)
Line 28: Line 28:
 
:::I really like '''ALT1''', but there are two things that would need to change before '''ALT1''' could be approved: (1) the article would need to state that Foster may not get a new trial (right now, it only says that his conviction may not be overturned), and (2) you should change the word "finding" with "holding" or "ruling" (trial courts generally issue findings of fact while appellate courts generally issue holdings in which those courts apply facts to law). I will also add a few brief editorial suggestions on the article's talk page for matters that are not relevant to the DYK review process. Overall though, this is excellent work. Best, -- [[User:Notecardforfree|Notecardforfree]] ([[User talk:Notecardforfree|talk]]) 18:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 
:::I really like '''ALT1''', but there are two things that would need to change before '''ALT1''' could be approved: (1) the article would need to state that Foster may not get a new trial (right now, it only says that his conviction may not be overturned), and (2) you should change the word "finding" with "holding" or "ruling" (trial courts generally issue findings of fact while appellate courts generally issue holdings in which those courts apply facts to law). I will also add a few brief editorial suggestions on the article's talk page for matters that are not relevant to the DYK review process. Overall though, this is excellent work. Best, -- [[User:Notecardforfree|Notecardforfree]] ([[User talk:Notecardforfree|talk]]) 18:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 
:::*I changed '''ALT1''' to be more in line with the source. [[User:Wugapodes|Wugapodes]] [[User talk:Wugapodes|[t<sup>h</sup>ɔk]]] [[Special:Contributions/Wugapodes|[kantʃɻɪbz]]] 17:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 
:::*I changed '''ALT1''' to be more in line with the source. [[User:Wugapodes|Wugapodes]] [[User talk:Wugapodes|[t<sup>h</sup>ɔk]]] [[Special:Contributions/Wugapodes|[kantʃɻɪbz]]] 17:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 +
::::*{{u|Wugapodes}}, thanks for following up with this. '''ALT1''' is good to go as well. Best, -- [[User:Notecardforfree|Notecardforfree]] ([[User talk:Notecardforfree|talk]]) 17:16, 30 May 2016 (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 17:16, 30 May 2016

Foster v. Chatman

  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Bamidele Ali
  • Comment: This is a rather mundane Supreme Court decision, so a "hooky" hook is hard to create. The sole dissenting justice was the court's only African-American, but a hook relating to that fact may not be neutral and raises BLP issues.

Created by Elium2 (talk), Wugapodes (talk), and AHeneen (talk). Nominated by AHeneen (talk) at 07:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg First of all, I want to thank you for your continued efforts to expand coverage of SCOTUS cases on Wikipedia -- this article is another nice addition to the encyclopedia! This article was created on May 23, it is over 1500 characters, and there are no issues with core policies. There is a fair bit of language that is also used in the Court's opinion, but that is unavoidable in articles like these. The original hook is under 200 characters, interesting, and supported by a citation to a reliable source. QPQ is satisfied and there are no images associated with this nomination.
I really like ALT1, but there are two things that would need to change before ALT1 could be approved: (1) the article would need to state that Foster may not get a new trial (right now, it only says that his conviction may not be overturned), and (2) you should change the word "finding" with "holding" or "ruling" (trial courts generally issue findings of fact while appellate courts generally issue holdings in which those courts apply facts to law). I will also add a few brief editorial suggestions on the article's talk page for matters that are not relevant to the DYK review process. Overall though, this is excellent work. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)