Template:Did you know nominations/Times Film Corporation v. City of Chicago


 * 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 Allen3 talk 20:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Times Film Corporation v. City of Chicago

 * ... that the United States Supreme Court held for a time that municipalities could censor movies based on content?
 * ALT1: ... that in 1957 showing Claude Autant-Lara's Le blé en herbe in Chicago theaters was constitutionally barred?
 * ALT2: ... that despite the outcome of Times Film Corporation v. City of Chicago, within five years the Supreme Court would reverse its decision on film censorship?
 * ALT3:...that before the reversal of Times Film Corporation v. City of Chicago in 1965, states and municipalities could legally censor films?
 * ALT4:...that the dissenting opinions of Times Film Corporation v. City of Chicago warned that the censorship of films could lead to censorship of other forms of art and expression?


 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/English Garden (album)

Created by DaltonCastle (talk). Self-nominated at 22:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC).



Automatically reviewed by DYKReviewBot. This bot is experimental; please report any issues. This is not a substitute for a human review. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 02:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Some issues found.
 * &#x2713; This article is new and was created on 19:27, 07 July 2016 (UTC)
 * &#x2713; This article meets the DYK criteria at 9631 characters
 * &#x2713; All paragraphs in this article have at least one citation
 * &#x2713; This article has no outstanding maintenance tags
 * &#x2717; There is possible close paraphrasing on this article with 36.7% confidence. (confirm)
 * Note to reviewers: There is low confidence in this automated metric, please manually verify that there is no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. Note that this number may be inflated due to cited quotes and titles which do not constitute a copyright violation.
 * Symbol question.svg Some overall issues detected
 * &#x2713; The hook ALT0 is an appropriate length at 108 characters
 * &#x2713; The hook ALT1 is an appropriate length at 104 characters
 * &#x2713; The hook ALT2 is an appropriate length at 151 characters
 * &#x2713; The hook ALT3 is an appropriate length at 130 characters
 * &#x2713; The hook ALT4 is an appropriate length at 170 characters
 * &#x2717; DaltonCastle has 8 DYK credits. A QPQ review is required for this nomination.
 * &#x2717; Template:Did you know nominations/English Garden (album) appears to have been used as QPQ for Template:Did you know nominations/TNGHT (EP), Template:Did you know nominations/Yung Gud, Template:Did you know nominations/Ghost (Mystery Skulls song), Template:Did you know nominations/Wave 1, Template:Did you know nominations/Times Film Corporation v. City of Chicago
 * QPQ OK; the other links were not QPQs. Intelligent  sium  02:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, so from my understanding, I need to remove some of the quotations, yes? DaltonCastle (talk) 03:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I made a handful of copy edits to redact over-quotation, and the Copyvio percentage is at 18%. I would like to point out that most of the remaining Copyvio flags are for the terms "United States Supreme Court", "First and Fourteenth Amendments", and "Time Films Corporation v. City of Chicago". DaltonCastle (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg This article is new enough and long enough. I think that ALT3 is the best hook for this important article (the other hooks may be acceptable but are less good IMO). I do not believe you needed to remove quotations, which are acceptable if properly attributed. The article is neutral; it necessarily uses legal words and phrases and I do not believe it has any copyright issues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)