Template:Did you know nominations/Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Louisiana Board of Health
- 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) 05:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
- ... that the U.S. Supreme Court took almost two years to hold that quarantine laws are constitutional after it heard oral argument? Source: "Argued October 29-30, 1900 ... Affirmed June 2, 1902, Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Louisiana Board of Health, 185 U.S. 130 (1902)
- ALT1:... that in Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Louisiana Board of Health a ship owner alleged that a quarantine was really intended to keep Italian immigrants out of New Orleans? "They averred that while said resolution, on its face, was purported to be general in its character, that as a matter of fact same was passed for the specific purpose of prohibiting and preventing said steamship Britannia from landing in the State of Louisiana, and dicharging said passengers therein ..." Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Louisiana Board of Health, 51 La. Ann. 645, 648 (1899, La.)
- Reviewed: Querida Amazonia
- Comment: No date desired on this one, although I think it's rather timely.
5x expanded by Daniel Case (talk). Self-nominated at 05:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC).
Both hooks are fine. The article was was expanded at least fivefold in the seven days before the nomination . It hasn't been featured on the Main Page's In the news section and hasn't previously appeared as a "qualifying article" in an earlier DYK. It contains at least 1,500 characters of readable prose and is not be a stub. The hook fact(s) is stated in the article, and is immediately followed by an inline citation to a reliable source. The article in general uses inline cited sources. Sources are properly labelled in a references section and the references do not have bare URLs. Any direct quotations have been marked as such and cited to a reliable source. The article contains no dispute templates. The article does not violate Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people. The article does not contain plagiarism or close paraphrasing. The article deals with the subject in a neutral manner. The hook is properly formatted and is shorter than about 200 characters. The hook does not have neutrality problems or undue emphasis on a negative aspect of a living individual. The images mostly PD in the US due to age and the one exception is appropriately licenced.©Geni (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
