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) 07:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Overall: Core criteria checked per above template, with following caveats. From this layman's point of view, text seems neutral as it provides a variety of reasoned viewpoints. Likewise, the legal citation system used is unfamiliar to me because of my lack of legal background, but is consistent throughout. The copyvio check shows 48.7%, but visual inspection reveals this is mostly due to numerous unavoidable repetitions of this legal case's lengthy title. Text is obviously editor's original work. Beyond that, nomination satisfies all other core criteria. As for the caveats above, I assume good faith efforts from the editor. Article is approved for DYK.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Core criteria checked per above template, with following caveats. From this layman's point of view, text seems neutral as it provides a variety of reasoned viewpoints. Likewise, the legal citation system used is unfamiliar to me because of my lack of legal background, but is consistent throughout. The copyvio check shows 48.7%, but visual inspection reveals this is mostly due to numerous unavoidable repetitions of this legal case's lengthy title. Text is obviously editor's original work. Beyond that, nomination satisfies all other core criteria. As for the caveats above, I assume good faith efforts from the editor. Article is approved for DYK.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)