Jump to content

Talk:Alabama v. North Carolina

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DYK

[edit]

References

  1. ^ a b c "Rights of states under waste disposal compact - SCOTUSblog". SCOTUSblog. 2010-01-11. Retrieved 2018-11-20.

The article looks in good order - interesting story, material cited and written neutrally and of size, but there must be a way to word the above hook more snazzily! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Would you be willing to help with that? I have never touched DYK before --DannyS712 (talk) 06:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyS712: ok I have had a go at writing a concise lead here. Does that summarise the facts well enough? Please change if I got it wrong... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:32, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about:

or something catchy like that? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: how about the last one I put above? --DannyS712 (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I like that. Recommend mainspacing and nominating....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber:  Done would you be willing to review the article and assess it? I had it as "NA" because it was in my userspace, but it should probably get assessed (I'd say B or C, but since I wrote it I have a COI). Thanks for all the help. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I gave it a C - is there anything on precedents or similar cases? Also legacy? Was it widely reported? Were there political ramifications? Also I don't get how far talks progressed on the facility...did it get a possible location etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:39, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Image

[edit]

Can anyone figure out how to add an image (File:Fig040.gif) with the caption "Current Interstate Compacts, including the Southeast Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Compact, the subject of this case." without messing everything up? --DannyS712 (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More detail?

[edit]

I believe this article would benefit from a more detailed explanation of why the Supreme Court ruled the way it did — more than just saying the court "overruled all of the objections to the special master's reports". What legal principles were brought into play as part of the reasoning? Also, since this case happened in 2010, I would assume there is some amount of subsequent history to be told (i.e., what happened after the decision, and whether there was any followup litigation). — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 23:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]