Template:Did you know nominations/Marc Kasowitz


 * 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) 06:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Marc Kasowitz

 * ... that Marc Kasowitz defended the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in a lawsuit following the 1993 World Trade Center bombing?
 * ALT1:... that Marc Kasowitz has represented Donald Trump in bankruptcies, sexual misconduct allegations, and the Russian election interference investigation?
 * Reviewed: IOU Template:Did you know nominations/Tony Rudd (stockbroker)
 * Comment: Definitely open to suggestions on Trump hooks.

Created by Muboshgu (talk). Self-nominated at 03:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg More or less good to go, save the fact that some of the hook (main) needs to be directly cited in the article (Port Authority bit). Another gripe for the ALT in terms of clarity is that he isn't representing Trump in the interference, but the investigation (some rewording in order). Lastly, QPQ has not been done. Cheers! Kingoflettuce (talk) 12:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * QPQ is done. ALT is changed. How about we just stick with Trump since the 1993 WTC bombing is far less interesting given current events? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg. Created 8 June 2017. Article is over 3,000 characters. QPQ done. Approved for ALT1, as recommended by, above. Sagecandor (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I think it's a matter of etiquette that you let the original reviewer i.e. me do the job. Also you could drop me a note (harder to see notifs) Cheers Kingoflettuce (talk) 07:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Didn't know there was etiquette, thought it was just everybody pitch in and help out review the nominations in good faith. Nothing had happened here on this page for two days. Sagecandor (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * give it 2 weeks, and then jump in. We're all volunteers here, so we don't always follow up immediately. And thanks for your enthusiasm – there are plenty of other unreviewed nominations on this page. Best, Yoninah (talk) 20:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * By two weeks, the hook will probably never get used. Sagecandor (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * helpfully explained more about the time process to me and I hope that's right. I'm very thankful to Yoninah for the helpful explanations. . Sagecandor (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * it's now been 2 weeks since the page creator responded to your review. Would you like to finish your review now? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

ya looks good to me now. Also no copyvio or biased wording detected. Good to go Kingoflettuce (talk) 13:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)