Talk:Wisconsin Department of Revenue v. William Wrigley Jr. Co.

Untitled
I don't know the outcome of the case, but someone has added a line refuting the rest of the article. I'm not reverting it, but I suspect it needs to be. Even if the case did go for Wisconsin, it shouldn't be worded "Actually the court sided with..." it should read that way from the start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.7.17.3 (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a horrible job, and one of the worst Main Page DYKs from SCOTUS I've ever seen. There's no discussion of the actual incident that gave rise to this case, no summary of the opinions much less a statement of who wrote them, and especially nothing that justifies the hook fact. A lot of this information isn't hard to look up, especially seeing as the findlaw link is right there. At the very least I will be adding to the infobox. Who approved this for DYK? It's very incomplete. Daniel Case (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I did, but with a caveat over the hook, which I thought only just justified by the law report. I agree it is not great - I edited it myself, which is a real sign of problems in a US law article. Johnbod (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Horrible :/ Well as discouraging as that may be, it is quite a transition from my usual edits around here, so I'll try not to take that too personally. I'm trying my hand at article writing, and I was asked to submit this article to DYK. XF Lawtalk at me 01:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)