Template:Did you know nominations/Glik v. Cunniffe


 * 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) 07:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Glik v. Cunniffe

 * ... that in the Glik v. Cunniffe case, the court noted that "we have previously recognized that the videotaping of public officials is an exercise of First Amendment liberties"?
 * ALT1: ... that in Glik v. Cunniffe, the court noted that "we have previously recognized that the videotaping of public officials is an exercise of First Amendment liberties"?
 * Reviewed: Kandia Crazy Horse
 * Comment: Notecardforfree took care of the GA review

Improved to Good Article status by GregJackP (talk) and Notecardforfree (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 17:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC).


 * Thank you for review and ALT1, which you can review as it is only a subset of the original, no new fact which would need a source. - The GA review is transcluded on the talk, btw. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Given that ALT1 is a condensation of ALT0, it is approved. Recommend ALT1 as hook to run. This nomination is GTG.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for the thorough review, Georgejdorner. ALT1 looks good to me. Cheers, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for the thorough review, Georgejdorner. ALT1 looks good to me. Cheers, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)