Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Missouri v. Frye

< Template:Did you know nominations
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 Yoninah (talk) 22:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Missouri v. Frye

(
)
  • ... that in Missouri v. Frye, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled defense attorneys have to communicate plea bargains to their clients?Source: "As a general rule, defense counsel has the duty to communicate formal prosecution offers to accept a plea on terms and conditions that may be favorable to the accused." Source
    • ALT1:... that the Supreme Court of the United States ruled defense attorneys "have the duty to communicate" plea bargain offers to their clients?

Created by Frood (talk). Self-nominated at 00:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: @Frood: There are some citation issues. Every paragraph should end with an inline citation, and every sentence preceding the last in a paragraph should have one as necessary. The actual hook (the holding of the court) does not actually appear in the Ruling section of the article. The biggest issue is that there is not a proper inline citation for the hook in the article. Bluebook citation is used, but it must have a pincite (i.e. the specific page in the opinion). AGF that no qpq is required. Ergo Sum 02:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

  • @Frood: Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Frood: Please return this to the nomination if you still wish to pursue it; it may be marked for closure if there is no response from you within a reasonable time frame. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: sorry, I'll fix it in the next few days. Just started a new job, haven't had as much time lately. – Frood (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
@Frood: It's been a week since your last comment here and no additional edits were made to the article. Unfortunately, considering the age of the nomination and the lack of progress thus far, the nomination may be marked for closure if the issues are not resolved within a reasonable timeframe. Hoping that you can return to the article soon so that the nomination can proceed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: alright, thanks for your patience. I think I've fixed all of the concerns? – Frood (talk) 02:13, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. @Ergo Sum: Pinging the original reviewer to return. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
All previous issues seem to have been resolved. Passing. Ergo Sum 03:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, why wouldn't they? I think the hook should give more of the background for this ruling. Yoninah (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
@Yoninah: That's a good point. How about something like ALT2: "... that after a man's jail time was increased over 10,000 percent [or hundredfold?], the Supreme Court of the United States ruled defense attorneys "have the duty to communicate" plea bargain offers to their clients"? It feels a bit wordy but (and ambiguous), but I'm not really sure how else to say it. – Frood (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Frood: thanks for the alt, but it is too ambiguous. Perhaps something like:
  • ALT3: ... that a 2012 US Supreme Court ruling ameliorated a case in which a defendant's prison sentence was increased a hundredfold because his attorney neglected to inform him of a plea bargain deal? Yoninah (talk) 16:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Yoninah, I like that one. Let's go with it. Thank you! – Frood (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I wasn't sure about using the word "ameliorated"; perhaps "redressed"? Anyway, we need another editor to review ALT3. Pinging original reviewer @Ergo Sum:. Yoninah (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Yoninah and Frood: The hook is much too wordy now. It was clearer before. Now it just says that it was addressed, but does not say how it was addressed. Ergo Sum 19:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Ergo Sum and Yoninah: how about ALT4: "... that after ineffective counsel led to a man's prison sentence being increased a hundredfold, the US Supreme Court ruled that attorneys are obligated to inform their clients about plea bargain offers?" Slightly less wordy, still a bit long though (199 characters after taking all the markup out). "Are obligated to" could potentially be replaced with "have to", but that's often interpreted as "ought to". – Frood (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Missouri_v._Frye&oldid=929301337"