Template:Did you know nominations/Bank Markazi v. Peterson


 * 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Bank Markazi v. Peterson

 * ... that the U.S. Supreme Court recently decided that a law that applied only to one case, identified by docket number, and abrogated all of a party's defenses did not violate the U.S. Constitution?


 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Zoe Dumitrescu-Bușulenga
 * Comment: Article was expanded from 4353 bytes of readable prose size (April 23 version, article not edited again until April 27) to 27kB of readable prose size (May 3; current version at time of DYK nomination), which is over 6x expansion. Pages in references using Template:Rp refer to the page number of the PDF files, not the page number that appears on the page displayed, for reasons stated on the article's talk page. Note: The acronym "U.S." is used so that the hook is within the 200 character limit (it's 194 characters, excluding the initial ellipse). "Recently" is used to provide some space between links, otherwise it would have side-by-side links: "U.S. Supreme Court decided".

5x expanded by AHeneen (talk). Self-nominated at 10:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg This article was 5x expanded between April 27 and May 3 (the date of nomination), it is long enough, and it is within policy (no issues with neutrality, verifiability, or copyvio). QPQ is satisfied, and there are no images associated with this nomination. The hook is under 200 characters, supported by an inline citation to a reliable source, and for those unfamiliar with the way legislation works, I can assure you that the law at question in this case is very unique and this certainly makes for an interesting hook. However, if other editors disagree, we could also try:
 * ALT1: ... that a spokesman for Iran's Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemned a recent United States Supreme Court ruling as "incompatible with international law"?
 * Of course, ALT1 will require separate approval. In any case, thanks for your hard work to improve this article! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think Alt 1 is better. Iranian officials have made many acrid remarks about the ruling and I don't really think that alt 1 is very hooky. AHeneen (talk) 02:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)