Template:Did you know nominations/Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd, Shearson/American Express Inc. v. McMahon

Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd, Shearson/American Express Inc. v. McMahon

 * ... that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Byron White's concurrence in Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd raised a question the Court had to resolve two years later in Shearson/American Express Inc. v. McMahon?
 * Reviewed: Gilles (stock character), Flip teaching
 * Comment: Apologies for adding this so late ... I saw potential for a double hook and decided to start the second article, which by itself would fall within the usual time limit. I have reviewed two noms as a way of making things right if anyone's bothered by this (and also because I've nominated two).

Created/expanded by Daniel Case (talk). Self nom at 07:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svgNewness: Someone more seasoned than I will have to address the issue of a late entry. On what dates did the expansion begin on each nom (as I am trying to assess 5X expansion)?
 * Hook: the word "reviving" makes me believe that Bryd was the second case, but it is not. How can you revive something that happened later?  I thought I understood the hook going in, but until this is cleared up, I cannot evaluate the citation of the hook. Thanks.--Ishtar456 (talk) 23:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I reworded; that would in retrospect have made sense only if I had also found a way to create and include Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Inc. Daniel Case (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry that made me chuckle.--Ishtar456 (talk) 03:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * NOTE: Shearson/American Express Inc. v. McMahon was started on the 26th (and entered here on time) but it looks like the expansion on other was started much earlier and was completed on the 28th.
 * They were new creations, not expansions. In the past we have often been lenient with the five-day rule if it's an experienced contributor, since (as is even the case today) many articles don't get reviewed until well after that deadline has passed. In this case I plead special circumstances: I realized there was the potential for a double hook, so I started the second article (Shearson), thinking I'd get to the point in it relatively quickly where it would bear out the hook (with SCOTUS-case articles, I'm usually not comfortable submitting them until I've reached at least the point in the article where I've summarized the decision. And then they often go unreviewed for a while ... I think because not everyone feels competent to review such a hook, which I can understand. A fair amount of my past SCOTUS-case DYKs were submitted late, and still accepted and run on the main page ... I think I didn't nominate Ontario v. Quon until two weeks after I'd started it, and with similar begging and pleading on my part it got accepted. So, that's my brief. Daniel Case (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * They were new creations, not expansions. In the past we have often been lenient with the five-day rule if it's an experienced contributor, since (as is even the case today) many articles don't get reviewed until well after that deadline has passed. In this case I plead special circumstances: I realized there was the potential for a double hook, so I started the second article (Shearson), thinking I'd get to the point in it relatively quickly where it would bear out the hook (with SCOTUS-case articles, I'm usually not comfortable submitting them until I've reached at least the point in the article where I've summarized the decision. And then they often go unreviewed for a while ... I think because not everyone feels competent to review such a hook, which I can understand. A fair amount of my past SCOTUS-case DYKs were submitted late, and still accepted and run on the main page ... I think I didn't nominate Ontario v. Quon until two weeks after I'd started it, and with similar begging and pleading on my part it got accepted. So, that's my brief. Daniel Case (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Thank you for taking the time to explain that. As it is, a couple of things have happened since I started review that make me feel uncomfortable reviewing. I thought I was experienced enough and intelligent enough, but like a lot of things on Wikipedia, it actually is not as easy as it sounds in the beginning. I hope this discussion so far will help someone finish it for you.  But I am not going to review anything else, at least for now.  Take Care.--Ishtar456 (talk) 03:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Two well-written and well-sourced articles. Hook checks out. No indication of misuse of other people's words. Nice work documenting an esoteric subject! --Orlady (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)