Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nix v. Hedden/archive1
Nix v. Hedden edit
Self-nomination: I'm interested in getting this United States Supreme Court case to FA status. I used the court case itself as the source, so only one reference is required. Not many people seem to have commented on this, can't find any other information. I think it's comprehensive now. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, P.S.: I might also note that if this does get to FA status this would be resolution to next years April Fools day issue. The case and its decision appears so unlikely that it might be seen as an April Fool's day joke. The ultimate in trickery would be to put this on the front page (with an image of a tomato): all those botanists viewing our site will go: no it's not! It's a fruit! But this will be an accurate and factual encylopedic entry. Jimbo would be proud :-) Ta bu shi da yu 05:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm not sure if I should support or object this one, but I'll make a comment about some things upon which others may base their objections. The subject matter is certainly intriguing, however I have a number of concerns. Firstly, I don't like how it is divided into "The case" and "The decision". Both consists mainly of quotations. Also, some of the wikilinks seem out of place—for example, there is a link to classify even though such an article does not exist (and if it did, would probably be better off in Wiktionary). While I don't think it is ready to be a featured article yet, with more work it will make a good one some day. Ben Babcock 05:44, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- There is a Wikiproject on this very issue: see WP:SCOTUS. Also, this is a reasonably standard structural division for U.S. Supreme Court cases. I'm not quite sure why the quotations are an issue, I am willing to work on this however. How should I rephrase them? As for wikilinks... I'm actually a bit suprised we don't have an article on classification systems! They are an article in their own right. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Have fixed the direct quoting: a minor copyedit should (hopefully) have done the trick. Have removed the classify wikilink (unless someone can point me to a classification article!). Kept the structure, as agree with WP:SCOTUS - our supreme court cases (no matter how obscure) need to be consistent to remain NPOV. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- There is a Wikiproject on this very issue: see WP:SCOTUS. Also, this is a reasonably standard structural division for U.S. Supreme Court cases. I'm not quite sure why the quotations are an issue, I am willing to work on this however. How should I rephrase them? As for wikilinks... I'm actually a bit suprised we don't have an article on classification systems! They are an article in their own right. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I like the topic, but this may be a little short. I don't agree that one reference is all that's required, because ideally you shouldn't be writing just about the case, but about the various things directly associated with it, such as reactions, legal precedents, things like that, which you could only get from other sources. I'll grant this could be difficult if the case is obscure; I don't think I had ever heard of it before now. Everyking 05:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The case is obscure, granted. The case itself, as far as I can see, did not become a major legal precedent on anything: the way courts deal with dictionaries appears to have been decided long before this. If other sources on this case can be found, please feel free to add them! However, due to its obscure nature, not many people have commented on it. We seem to be the ones who make the most comment — all without doing original research! With regards to writing only about the court case: I disagree, with respect, because the case itself should be the main focus of the article. If it had major repurcusions, they should be most definitely documented. This one didn't... It merely legally defined a tomato as a vegetable and not as a fruit. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:57, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- If it really did just drop like a stone into the water without any ripples, OK, using just the case is fine. And if this really is all there is to write, I suppose it might have FA potential, although I have little enthusiasm for one this short. Everyking 06:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Ya... I would be the first to add more info, had there been any :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 06:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- If it really did just drop like a stone into the water without any ripples, OK, using just the case is fine. And if this really is all there is to write, I suppose it might have FA potential, although I have little enthusiasm for one this short. Everyking 06:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The case is obscure, granted. The case itself, as far as I can see, did not become a major legal precedent on anything: the way courts deal with dictionaries appears to have been decided long before this. If other sources on this case can be found, please feel free to add them! However, due to its obscure nature, not many people have commented on it. We seem to be the ones who make the most comment — all without doing original research! With regards to writing only about the court case: I disagree, with respect, because the case itself should be the main focus of the article. If it had major repurcusions, they should be most definitely documented. This one didn't... It merely legally defined a tomato as a vegetable and not as a fruit. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:57, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Concise article on an interesting court case. Is it possible to get the dictionary definitions which were used as evidence in the case, and maybe use them as external links? Also, the article could mention how legal maxims like "inclusio unius est exclusio alterius" were applied to this case. For the main page, how about a picture of tomato salad? That is certainly *not* a dessert. :) Graham 07:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The legal maxim I actually wanted was "ejusdem generis", latin for of the same kind. [1]
However, I'd understand if it would be difficult to incorporate the use of legal maxims into the article, to comply with the policy of no original research. Graham 02:14, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- support. Well written, concise. There is nothing else to say in terms of consequences, implications, so it's complete. It's sourced and the intro is fine.--Fenice 20:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I have an objection. The article is overly concise. It has no external links (at least give links to an online copy of the case and a case summary). There are a couple of long block quotes. It'd be best, especially for the first one, if the quotes content is also summarized in the article (to tell you the truth I can't tell what side those expert witnesses are on). More references would be nice- are those quotes in the decision? It also doesn't meet the wikiproject guidelines. It should have a breakdown as Roe v. Wade does for each justice and what side they were on. Also, there are a couple of cases which cited this one [2]. Don't worry there is plenty of time until April 1. This link is Broken 22:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- It appears that Everyking and BrokenSegue are correct: this may be a little premature for FAC. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:32, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Object for now - a good start, but, as per the talk page, I think you need to identify the particular law in point in this case, discuss the previous cases cited in the judgement, and put it in its legal context (including the usual rules of legal construction). -- ALoan (Talk) 28 June 2005 14:51 (UTC)
- Comment: Could you get a better picture of a tomato? The current one with someone's hand in the photo looks rather amateurish. Deus Ex 29 June 2005 09:17 (UTC)
- Object. The case certainly did not decide that "legally, a tomato is a vegetable"; at most in decided that a tomato is a vegetable under US law, and I strongly suspect that it only decided that a tomato is a vegetable for the purposes of a specific subsection of a specific act. In FAC terms, the article is not comprehensive. Mark1 30 June 2005 01:57 (UTC)