Template:Did you know nominations/Kerry v. Din


 * 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 ~ RobTalk 02:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Kerry v. Din

 * ... that analysts predicted the justices' opinions in Kerry v. Din would foreshadow the outcome in Obergefell v. Hodges?



Created by Notecardforfree (talk). Self-nominated at 10:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC).


 * My take: Was created today. Appears to be of more than sufficient length. Inline sources plentiful. The hook is interesting (in light of the recent LGBT rights ruling) and neutral. The source of the hook seems to have a problem, though - the link is leading to a completely different topic now. I could find the old text here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg @Jo-Jo Eumerus, thanks so much for taking a look at the article and for your kind words. I fixed the link to the article in the in-line text of the citation, and I also added two more citations to substantiate the claim. I found that by adding a space after the url, the hyperlink now works. Thanks! -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg New enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. Hook ref verified and cited inline. No QPQ needed for nominator with less than 5 DYKs. Good to go. Yoninah (talk) 01:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)