Template:Did you know nominations/Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination The following is an archived discussion of Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you knowDYK comment symbol (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.

The result was: promoted by Miyagawa (talk) 10:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC).

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl[edit]

  • ...

that the United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case on the Indian Child Welfare Act for only the second time in Supreme Court history? Created by GregJackP (talk). Self nom at 01:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment, my bad, sorry (I know better -facepalm- ). I like your hook, let's use it. GregJackP Boomer! 01:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

ALT1 ... that Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl is only the second case on the Indian Child Welfare Act taken on by the United States Supreme Court?"

  • I listed the current hook as Alt1 and struck the original hook. GregJackP Boomer! 20:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote4.png Needs full review. Chris857 (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Symbol question.svg This article is new enough and long enough, the only problem is with the hook. I can see no mention in the article of this being the second ICWA case taken on by the Supreme Court. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I've just put a notice on GregJackP's talk page. While the page says he's retired (posted February 6), he made a couple of edits today, so I think we should allow a full week from now for a response on the issue. Alternatively, someone here could try to address the "second ICWA case" issue in the article/sourcing, or propose a new hook that avoids the "second" part altogether. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • It sent me an email notice (I forgot to disable it) - my other edits were to an FA that was still in FAC when I retired. I added a sentence and ref to the U.S. Supreme Court subsection, last sentence. Hopefully this will take care of it. GregJackP Boomer! 23:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg The hook is now supported by an inline citation and this nomination is ready to go. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)