Template:Did you know nominations/Rantzen v Mirror Group Newspapers (1986) Ltd and others


 * 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) 06:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Rantzen v Mirror Group Newspapers (1986) Ltd and others‎

 * ... that the winner in Rantzen v Mirror Group Newspapers was awarded "Mickey Mouse money" by the jury, which was later reduced on appeal due to being disproportionate? Source: Independent
 * Reviewed: 1902 Ibrox disaster

Moved to mainspace by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 08:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Well-written, new enough, long enough, neutral, and well-cited. The hook could be a little wordy, but it may need to be somewhat awkward to convey everything, so it is fine. QPQ done. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 12:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg An issue was raised about this nomination at WT:DYK and while that might be resolvable, I found a sourcing issue that I don't have time to resolve right now, so am pulling the hook for the time being so that the issues can be ironed out appropriately. Gatoclass (talk) 11:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I am unsure what sourcing issue you mean? I have added another source for the Mickey mouse line.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 12:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the vagueness, it relates to the line "This power was introduced by the Lord Chancellor during the drafting of the bill" which doesn't have an immediate source. I did find a source which looks as if it might be the right one (#3 in the article from memory) but it looked like a heavy read and I don't feel up to tackling it at the moment, I'll try to find some time to read it carefully tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 12:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That's OK . It is in the Baili source where it says: "At the invitation of the parties and in order to resolve a possible ambiguity as to the meaning of the word "excessive" in section 8(1) of the 1990 Act the court consulted the passage in Hansard for 20 February 1990 when the Lord Chancellor introduced the clause in the House of Lords."  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 12:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ?  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 18:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ?  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 09:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Sorry about the delay in getting back to this, I've had some health issues over the last month that led me to curtail my activity here. Having re-read the source, I withdraw my objection, and since I see a second source has been added for the "Mickey Mouse money" quote, the other objection about lack of corroboration would appear to no longer apply, so I'm restoring the tick. Gatoclass (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)