Template:Did you know nominations/Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L.
- 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) 07:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L.
- ... that the U.S. Supreme Court will decide if a frustrated high school student who Snapchatted "fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything" can be suspended from cheerleading for a year? Source: this ABA Journal story that is fn 3 in the article That the unexpurgated word was actually used can be verified in the "Background" section of the US District Court ruling
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Jenifer Ringer
- Comment: milder hooks can be devised if necessary
Created by Elliot321 (talk), Masem (talk), and Wasted Time R (talk). Nominated by Wasted Time R (talk) at 23:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC).
Length checks out, history checks out; it's good to have another article about a SCOTUS 1A case ready to go before even oral argument (Had I been writing it I would have tried to find the district court and appellate decisions online and go into some detail about them; you still could. You might also want to see if the briefs (even the cert petition and response petition for denial of cert) are online somewhere, as well as who might be filing amici, and even if those briefs are online). QPQ is good. I also verified the source, because I'd read the New York Times article when it ran, but ... I know this will seem like needless bureaucratic hoop-jumping, but you should make sure the source is linked in the nomination, and the relevant part quoted, like every other nom does. Just take care of that, and I think I'll be back with a green check mark (I have no objections to the hook, as I really can't imagine anything else being the subject and this will definitely get clicks. However, I've had similar hooks built around dirty words get gently batted down, and I can't speak for other reviewers). Daniel Case (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Daniel Case: Thanks very much for doing the review. I have added source information to the nomination as requested. Regarding expanding upon the district and circuit court cases, the rulings themselves are linked to in two of the footnotes, but I don't know the Tinker and Fraser precedents and I don't have a good feel for constitutional law in this area, so I didn't feel qualified to take it on. It certainly is an interesting subject though. Regarding the SCOTUS filings, if you click on the docket number link in the infobox, I think they are all there. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Good now. I'd be happy to work on it a bit later, now that I've discharged my responsibilities here. Daniel Case (talk) 01:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, and yes please do. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Daniel Case: Thanks very much for doing the review. I have added source information to the nomination as requested. Regarding expanding upon the district and circuit court cases, the rulings themselves are linked to in two of the footnotes, but I don't know the Tinker and Fraser precedents and I don't have a good feel for constitutional law in this area, so I didn't feel qualified to take it on. It certainly is an interesting subject though. Regarding the SCOTUS filings, if you click on the docket number link in the infobox, I think they are all there. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
