Template:Did you know nominations/David v. Poe

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 Jolly Ω Janner 04:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

David v. Poe

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

Grace Poe

• ... that David v. Poe (Poe pictured) affects the status of foundlings in the Philippines?

• Reviewed: Roy Señeres

Created by Hariboneagle927 (talk). Nominated by Shhhhwwww!! (talk) at 06:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC).

• Lenghtwise article is long enough and posted before due date. Hook is interesting, cited and verified. No copy vio noted. Text is neutral. Img is free. Good to go.Nvvchar. 01:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Hang on, this is an amazing story, with a weak hook. Can we not do better? How about . . .

• ALT1 ... that the case of David v. Poe (Poe pictured) could prevent a presidential candidate, and a foundling, standing for election in the Phillipines? Parkywiki (talk) 02:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

No. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• There are several references in the article that are simply bare URLs, which is not allowed for DYKs if they wish to be promoted to the main page. (See WP:DYKSG#D3 for details.) Also, I agree with Parkywiki that the original hook is weak, because it doesn't give any idea why it affects the foundlings. However, the proposed ALT1 is problematic because the case has concluded and not prevented the candidate from standing, so I've struck it as well as the original hook. The article also has a basic problem with tense. Since the issue appears to be decided, at least in terms of the senate case (David v. Poe), the lede should not be written as if it was still to be decided. There is also an extraordinary claim that this case affects the status of foundlings in the Philippines (inherent in both hooks), but I'm not convinced this is true: one senator has been reaffirmed by a panel of six senators and three supreme court justices as eligible to retain her office although she is a foundling, but does this truly extend to all foundlings in the country? There are a couple of issues with the Reaction section. First, there's only one person's reaction, which is by default non-neutral, since only a single viewpoint is given. Also, there's one quote there that needs to be cited. (All quotes must be cited by the end of the sentence in which they conclude.) BlueMoonset (talk) 08:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• @BlueMoonset. Fixed.

ALT2 ...that it is speculated in the media that David v. Poe may affect the status of Filipino abandoned children in relation to Grace Poe (pictured), who herself is a foundling?

Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 14:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• Shhhhwwww!!, thank you for fixing the bare URLs. However, the issue with the extraordinary claim remains in your proposed ALT2: there are three sources cited for the equivalent statement to the new hook in the article, none of which, to my eye, have any support for it. I didn't see any speculation that this decision would affect anyone at all going forward except for Poe who can, based on this decision, continue to be a senator and presidential candidate. Can you point to any specific passages in these sources that support the hook? BlueMoonset (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset. Fixed.

• ALT3 ... that David v. Poe may declare foundlings in the Philippines, such as Grace Poe (pictured), as natural-born Filipinos? Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• This is another hook where I see no support in the sources, including the new source added. Shhhhwwww!!, I asked you to point to specific passages in the sources, and I'm afraid I'm going to have to insist that you do so if you propose another variant on the decision potentially changing the status of foundlings in the Philiippines. So far, I see no evidence in the sources that David v. Poe will have an effect on anyone but Poe, and then only if the Supreme Court reverses the SET in early 2016. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• ALT4 ... that in David v. Poe, the Senate Electoral Tribunal declared Grace Poe (pictured) as a "natural-born Filipino." Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 14:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset try this one.

• Shhhhwwww!!, I think it needs more interest, so I'm striking ALT4 and proposing ALT5. I also edited the article to take care of the issue I raised above, and to improve the prose.

• ALT5: ... that in David v. Poe, the Senate Electoral Tribunal declared that Grace Poe (pictured), a foundling, is a "natural-born Filipino", which allowed her to retain her seat in the Philippine Senate?

New reviewer needed for ALT5. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• ALT5a: ... that in David v. Poe, the Senate Electoral Tribunal declared that foundling Grace Poe (pictured) is a "natural-born Filipino", allowing her to remain in the Philippine Senate?
• ALT5b: ... that in David v. Poe, foundling and Philippine Senator Grace Poe (pictured) was declared a "natural-born Filipino" and thus retains her seat?

Proposing 5a and 5b as improved / simplified wordings of ALT5. @BlueMoonset: if I review ALT5, can you choose between 5, 5a, and 5b (with essentially identical content) to get this DYK promoted? EdChem (talk) 06:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• This article is new enough and long enough. I think ALT5a is best and have struck the others for clarity. The hook facts are cited, the image is in the public domain, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)