Template:Did you know nominations/Ocasio v. United States


 * 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) 06:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Ocasio v. United States

 * ... that Justice Sonia Sotomayor described a recent a recent United States Supreme Court decision as "an unnatural outcome"?


 * ALT1:... that one commentator suggested that a recent United States Supreme Court decision may "raise more questions than answers"?
 * ALT2:... that one commentator opined that a recent United States Supreme Court decision "produced some particularly interesting divisions among the justices"?
 * Reviewed: Filipe Melo (footballer)

5x expanded by Notecardforfree (talk). Self-nominated at 07:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg Article is long enough, more than 5x expanded within a week before nomination, QPQ done. Earwig's copyvio detector shows some paraphrasing, but I believe it is somewhat inevitable here. All hooks are interesting and each is supported by an inline citation. However, I would like to note a few points:
 * "recent" may be confusing, as this refers to early May and now we are heading to early June, and we have no idea when this will appear on the main page.
 * others have suggested that the case "raise more questions than answers." This line in the lead suggests it was not the opinion of "one commentator" as given in ALT1, and indeed is the opinion of just Rory Little as far as I understand. Sainsf  (talk · contribs) 07:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for taking the time to review this article -- I very much appreciate it. With respect to your question about the "recent" nature of the case, it is common to call cases released within the past few years "recent cases." See, for example, some of the cases listed under the Harvard Law Review's coverage of recent cases. As for your second point, I changed "others have suggested" to "at least one commentator has suggested." Let me know if there is anything else that you think needs to be done with this article. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Thanks for the clarification and changes made. I believe this is good to go now. Cheers, Sainsf  (talk · contribs) 05:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)