Template:Did you know nominations/United States v. Forty-Three Gallons of Whiskey

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 Yoninah (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

United States v. Forty-Three Gallons of Whiskey[edit]

(

)

... that the United States once sued 43 gallons of whiskey? Source:Reader's Digest

Reviewed: Fit in or fuck off
Comment: For April Fools Day

Created by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 16:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC).

Very interesting article, definitely April Fools worthy. As an alternate hook, you could also mention the Nonintercourse Act (which itself is a funny name). Meets all requirements (newness, length, sourcing, only image is the SCOTUS seal so no problems there, no plagiarism detected, QPQ, etc.). This should be good to go.Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5 and The C of E: Hi, I just came across this article and made a number of edits. I'm concerned about the overall sourcing of this article. I don't know how the following statements are supported by their inline citations:

An Indian agent reported him to the authorities and the barrels were seized under the 1834 Nonintercourse Act for introducing unlicenced alcohol into Indian territory, from source 2
Based on this direction, the District Court overrode its original judgement and found that the seizure was legal., from source 3
Lariviere was also sentenced to two years imprisonment as a result., from source 4

Of all of the sources, only one (#4) is a reliable non-primary source, and that source is literally two sentences long. I haven't looked for more yet (about to head off), so I haven't looked for more, but I'm not confident that the article is currently well-sourced enough to demonstrate notability. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I have added two book sources which discuss the case, I can add more if you feel it is needed. @L235:. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Greatly appreciated; I'll read through those when I get a chance. I do still have broader concerns with verifiability, for which I've started a discussion on the talk page. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

As the objector has not responded on the talk page regarding the changes made, can I ask @Narutolovehinata5: or anyone else if they can pass it again please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it's best first to at least hear a comment from L235 first. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the delay, my apologies, I wasn't pinged to the talk page response. To me, this article is a great reason that we try to rely more on reliable secondary sources, because particularly in this field, it's so easy for laypeople to misunderstand the primary legal documents. Anyway, I have made some more substantial edits. I'm still not overly excited about this, but I have no remaining objections to passing this DYK. Because I have become a substantial contributor to this article, I'm not giving it a tick myself; up to reviewer's discretion on whether to add a DYKmake. I know that getting this for April Fools means a lot to The C of E, so I encourage a reviewer to make a review fairly quickly. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

As L235 has now contributed to the article and has no more remaining objections, the tick is now restored. What hook to use is now up to the promoter. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)