Talk:State v. Linkhaw
Latest comment: 3 years ago by MeegsC in topic Did you know nomination
 | A fact from State v. Linkhaw appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 April 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Did you know nomination
edit- 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 MeegsC (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
( )
- ... that in State v. Linkhaw, the North Carolina Supreme Court sided with a man who sang so badly in church that a jury had convicted him of "disturbing a religious congregation"? Sources: "Linkhaw...was indicted for disturbing a religious congregation...the jury convicted him." [1] "He was indicted and convicted for lousy singing in a Robeson County Methodist church in 1873. But the N.C. Supreme Court reversed the decision." [2] See also the text of the court's decision, [3].
- ALT1: ... that in State v. Linkhaw, the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed a jury's conviction of a man who sang so badly in church that he was "disturbing a religious congregation"?
- Reviewed: This will be my third DYK credit, so I'm exempt.
- Comment: You certainly won't regret reviewing this one. I'm glad to hear suggestions for making the hook "hookier".
Moved to mainspace by Extraordinary Writ (talk). Self-nominated at 00:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC).
This is my first DKY review so a second review would be appreciated. Article content looks in terms of prose. I'm unsure why citation 6 say "State v. Linkhaw" but 9-11 just say "Linkhaw" even though they seem to be the same source. Earwig tool says plagiarism is unlikely. Article is neutral. Hook is under 200 characters, and seems "hooky" to me. I added an alt that I think makes it a little easier to understand. User said this is their third DYK credit but I'm not sure how to verify that. The link to DYKUpdateBot on Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide is broken. PS: I added a space after your "..."
- Thanks for the review, RayScript! You can check the DYK credits with the "QPQ check" tool linked in the box above: just type in my username and it should show my previous DYKs. The citation form, while a bit quirky, is standard when citing legal decisions; see, for instance, footnotes 1, 11, and 12 in the Roe v. Wade article. I like that the alt is more concise, but I do think it's important to put "disturbing a religious congregation" in the jury's "voice" instead of our own. Perhaps the promoter/2nd reviewer can think of a way to do both? Oh, and thanks for putting the space after the ellipsis. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info! Confirming that QPQ check cleared. Cheers RayScript (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Extraordinary Writ, I've promoted this one with the hook "... that in State v. Linkhaw, the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the conviction of a man who sang so badly in church that a jury had found him guilty of "disturbing a religious congregation"? We've got a few days before it actually runs, so let me know if you're not happy with the modification. MeegsC (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
