Template:Did you know nominations/Foster v. Chatman
- 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) 06:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Foster v. Chatman edit
- ... that a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court finding that prosecutors unconstitutionally removed black prospective jurors in a murder trial of a black man may not overturn his death sentence?
- ALT1: ... that despite the Supreme Court holding in Foster v. Chatman that prosecutors purposefully discriminated against black jurors in his trial, Timothy Foster's death sentence might not be overturned?
- 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).
- comment I added another hook I was thinking of that's similar. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 14:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
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)
- I changed ALT1 to be more in line with the source. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 17:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Wugapodes, thanks for following up with this. ALT1 is good to go as well. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:16, 30 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, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)