Template:Did you know nominations/Bank Markazi v. Peterson

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Bank Markazi v. Peterson

edit

5x expanded by AHeneen (talk). Self-nominated at 10:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC).

  • This article was 5x expanded between April 27 and May 3 (the date of nomination), it is long enough, and it is within policy (no issues with neutrality, verifiability, or copyvio). QPQ is satisfied, and there are no images associated with this nomination. The hook is under 200 characters, supported by an inline citation to a reliable source, and for those unfamiliar with the way legislation works, I can assure you that the law at question in this case is very unique and this certainly makes for an interesting hook. However, if other editors disagree, we could also try:
Of course, ALT1 will require separate approval. In any case, thanks for your hard work to improve this article! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't think Alt 1 is better. Iranian officials have made many acrid remarks about the ruling and I don't really think that alt 1 is very hooky. AHeneen (talk) 02:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)