Template:Did you know nominations/Heffernan v. City of Paterson
- 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 Montanabw(talk) 18:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Heffernan v. City of Paterson
[edit]- ... that when Paterson, New Jersey police detective Jeffrey Heffernan picked up a campaign sign for his sick mother in 2005, it started a dispute that was resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court only this year?
- ALT1:... that three different U.S. federal district judges heard Heffernan v. City of Paterson, recently decided by the Supreme Court?
- ALT2:... that the U.S. Supreme Court recently held in Heffernan v. City of Paterson that a public employer violates the First Amendment even when it mistakenly disciplines an employee for political activity?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/S/2015 (136472) 1
Created by Wugapodes (talk), Daniel Case (talk), and Neutrality (talk). Nominated by Wugapodes (talk) at 00:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC).
This article was created on April 26 (seven days before it was nominated at DYK), the article is well over 1500 characters, and the article is neutral. There are, however, two citations that need to be added before this nomination can be approved:
The first paragraph of the "History" section (the one that begins "The case took a decade ...") needs citations.In the "District Court" section, you say that Heffernan "relied on" Pickering and its progeny. Can you cite to his brief or somewhere that shows that he argued those cases should be followed?
- Otherwise, QPQ is satisfied, the hooks are interesting, and they and supported by inline citations. The original hook is my favorite, but by my count, it is 201 characters. I'm willing to let it slide if others are as well. If not, maybe you can trim down a word or two? Thanks again for your great work with this article. It is an excellent addition to Wikipedia's coverage of SCOTUS cases. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
For the record, all issues have been resolved. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
