Template:Did you know nominations/Petition for review


 * 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 SST flyer 13:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Petition for review

 * ... that if you are wrongly convicted in the United States and you don't petition for review of your case, you may not be able to challenge your conviction in the future?
 * ALT1: ... that if you are wrongly convicted in the United States and you don't file a petition for review, you may not be able to challenge your conviction in the future?


 * Reviewed: Margareta Hallin

Created by Notecardforfree (talk). Self-nominated at 21:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg The article is new, DYK nom by due date. Long enough at over 3700 characters. Earwig's copyvio detector: violation unlikely. The article is interesting, well written, sourced. QPQ done. The hooks proposed have two issues. : [1] isn't the hook referring to the United States law, and should the hook state so to avoid confusing readers outside the US? if it applies to other jurisdictions, the article should discuss those countries and the hook revised appropriately. [2] can you please mention/discuss the "challenge your conviction" etc part, with a reliable source, somewhere in the article, to make the hook acceptable? Thanks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your thorough review. I apologize for not responding earlier; I haven't had much time to check back with Wikipedia the last two weeks. In any event, I changed the hooks to indicate that the hooks are referring to United States law. With respect to your second question, the article explains that individuals convicted under state law cannot challenge their conviction by petitioning for a writ of habeas corpus if they do not first exhaust state court remedies by filing a petition for review in state court:
 * "Because United States habeas corpus law requires petitioners for writs of habeas corpus to have exhausted state court remedies if they were convicted by a state court, habeas petitioners must first file a petition for review in the highest court in the state in which they were convicted, and raise all applicable issues, before filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal court."
 * I cite to this article in the Seattle Journal of Social Justice to support the aforementioned information. Thanks again for your help with this review. and please let me know if there is anything else that you think needs to be done with this article. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg @Notecardforfree: Thanks for this interesting article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)