Talk:Ordot Dump

A fact from Ordot Dump appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 27 March 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Guam in the territory's attempt to seek U.S. Navy contributions to clean up Ordot Dump, a former landfill and Superfund site?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2022/March. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ordot Dump.

Wikipedia

Micronesia: Guam Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Micronesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Micronesia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicronesiaWikipedia:WikiProject MicronesiaTemplate:WikiProject MicronesiaMicronesia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Guam work group.

Did you know nomination[edit]

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 SL93 (talk) 18:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Guam in the territory's attempt to seek U.S. Navy contributions to cleaning up Ordot Dump, a former landfill and Superfund site? Source: https://www.reuters.com/business/legal/scotus-sides-with-guam-160-million-ex-navy-dump-superfund-case-2021-05-24/

Created by Featous (talk). Self-nominated at 21:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

New enough and long enough. QPQ not needed; fewer than five credits. Article is quite interesting. Featous, I'd like to see the Reuters piece cited inline on the sentence that mentions this as a unanimous verdict, as there is no citation on the sentence with the hook fact, but that's all that is needed for approval of this page. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reuters citation added to the sentence in question. Thanks! - Featous (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Sammi Brie: to complete review (i.e.: add tick if warranted). – Reidgreg (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I like being pinged, Featous... Tick granted. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]