Template:Did you know nominations/Alabama v. North Carolina


 * 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 Vincent LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 14:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Alabama v. North Carolina
Moved to mainspace by DannyS712 (talk). Self-nominated at 23:20, 22 November 2018 (UTC).
 * ... that the 2010 United States Supreme Court original jurisdiction case Alabama v. North Carolina came about after four states paid North Carolina $80 million for a failed waste management facility....and wanted their money back? Source: SCOTUSblog
 * ALT1: ... that the 2010 US Supreme Court original jurisdiction case Alabama v. North Carolina came after four states paid North Carolina $80 million for a failed waste facility – and wanted their money back?


 * Symbol possible vote.svg The hook is well over 225 characters. Yoninah (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have included another option, than is under 200 characters --DannyS712 (talk) 00:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Here is a review: New enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. Is the phrase "original jurisdiction" really necessary? It's causing a sea of blue links and is also pretty technical for a general audience. I notice on the talk page that you have the option:
 * ALT1a: ... that the 2010 US Supreme Court case Alabama v. North Carolina came about after four states paid North Carolina $80 million for a failed waste facility – and wanted their money back?
 * Alternately, you could pipe the bolded link to limit repeated words, like:
 * ALT2: ... that in 2010, the US Supreme Court heard an original jurisdiction case in which four states sued North Carolina for refusing to return the money they had invested in a failed waste facility?
 * The fact about paying $80 million needs an inline cite. No QPQ necessary for nominator with less than 5 DYK credits. Yoninah (talk) 23:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Lets go with ALT2, since the fact that it is an "original jurisdiction" case is special (there are very few of these). For the citation, the footnote is included at the end of the paragraph. That source reports that "In 1988, North Carolina asked the Commission for assistance with the costs of licensing and building a facility. The Commission adopted a resolution declaring it “appropriate and necessary” to provide financial assistance, and ultimately paid almost $80 million to North Carolina from 1988 through 1997 . North Carolina also expended $34 million of its own funds. Yet by the mid 1990s, North Carolina was still many years—and many tens of millions of dollars—away from obtaining a license." I have underlined the relevant sentence. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but add the inline cite to the end of the sentence in which the $80 million figure appears. Yoninah (talk) 23:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, if this kind of case is so rare, why not add a mention of it to the Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States article? Yoninah (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * ✅ with respect to adding the inline cite. However, when I said that these cases are rare, I meant that they are relatively rare, since only ~1 is heard every year. The article you linked to doesn't contain a list of cases. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * you could add it to the prose under the "Cases" section. Yoninah (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There are 39 cases in Category:United States Supreme Court original jurisdiction cases. Not all can be listed --DannyS712 (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem. But when I write an article, I try to link it in as many other articles as I can.
 * Symbol confirmed.svg ALT2 hook refs verified and cited inline. Since my wording is just a tweak from the nominator's original suggestions, I'm going ahead and approving this. ALT2 good to go. Yoninah (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)