Template:Did you know nominations/Michigan v. EPA
- 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 Allen3 talk 10:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Michigan v. EPA
[edit]... that a recent United States Supreme Court decision struck down a regulation that may have prevented as many as 11,000 premature deaths per year?
ALT1:... that a recent United States Supreme Court decision may have derailed President Barack Obama's climate change agenda?- Reviewed: Marcelo Odebrecht
Created by Notecardforfree (talk). Self-nominated at 20:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC).
- Comment - A well written article, but perhaps it should have a less speculative hook? (Something without the word may in it.) P. S. Burton (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- Okay then -- how about either of these:
- ALT2:... that a recent United States Supreme Court decision struck down a regulation that the Environmental Protection Agency claims would have prevented as many as 11,000 premature deaths per year?
- ALT3:... that commentators believe a recent United States Supreme Court decision "may well leave the Obama climate agenda in tatters?"
- I am happy to offer other alternate hooks if these still sound too speculative -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Full review needed of the article and the proposed hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
This article is new enough and long enough. I have struck the original hooks in favour of ALT2 and ALT3. These have inline citations, the first online, and the second offline. The article is neutral and free from copyright issues as far as I can tell. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
