Template:Did you know nominations/Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle
- The following discussion 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 v/r - TP 07:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle[edit]
... that Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle was the U.S. Supreme Court's first ruling on the Eleventh Amendment status of local governments in 86 years?- ALT1: ... that E. Gordon Gee says Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle is the first time the U.S. Supreme Court allowed an action to continue even though it had found the First Amendment was violated?
- Reviewed: Ribs (song)
- Comment: Sorry to be a little late nominating this one; I had to get to the point where I could remove the tags and put in the hook fact.
It's in progress; I might find other fun facts.
- OK. Done now. Daniel Case (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
5x expanded by Daniel Case (talk). Self nominated at 03:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC).
Can we start by the nominator correctly identifying when this article was expanded 5x in prose? I cannot easily determine this from the edit history, but it is certainly not 29 January. C679 10:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- DYKcheck reports that the 5x expansion started on January 30 UTC, which is the date that counts. (It may have been January 29 local time, but that isn't relevant to DYK.) The nomination was seven days later (two days late) on February 6. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I would say for someone with 243 DYK credits, they should know the rules, and if getting on the main page is important, to make sure a hook is ready when publishing such a significant update to the article. I appreciate I am not making a full review here, and will not be using it for QPQ purposes of my own, but it's a fail of the first criteria and I will not proceed. C679 21:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure I even understand this decline. But if I do, the deadline has been waived in the past.This may be confusing as to the start date, I admit because unlike my usual practice I was rewriting someone else's work (very little of which remains), rather than writing afresh. But yes, I did start in earnest on 1/29. Super Bowl weekend got in the way a bit. Daniel Case (talk) 04:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Addedum: I perhaps should point out as well that the reviewer failed to follow DYK protocol and didn't bother to notify me on my talk page when he had questions earlier today that he specifically indicated he would like me to have answered personally. Daniel Case (talk) 04:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Daniel, people who nominate articles for DYK are expected to keep track of what's going on with their own nominations. It is a courtesy extended by many reviewers to ping a nominator's talk page, not a requirement. (As it happens, I answered the question; a personal reply wasn't necessary after all.) As for the decline, it's by the book: exceptions for late nominations are just that—exceptions, not the rule. You were two days late, and as the reviewer points out, you've done well over 200 DYK nominations and should know to submit nominations on time. Deadline leniency is an option under WP:DYKSG#D9, though by no means a requirement. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Gee. I try very hard to make sure that what I nominate for the main page does not look like crap when it gets there (unlike some other frequent nominators here who, once they get past 5K and have a citation for the hook fact and nothing else, move on to something else and leave the rest of us to clean up the mess). Generally this has been appreciated. I have in the past advocated for longer deadlines to promote the creation of better quality articles for the feature, but have not found much support (The deadline was justifiable in the past when we were likely to have shortages of quality hooks, but no one could seriously argue that's a problem anymore).
I am feeling more than just chagrined about this ... I am feeling somewhat whipsawed.
About six weeks ago I began work on dump months, with the idea that it might make a timely hook for the first weekend of January. I got it to the point where I could nominate it by Christmas Eve, and kept working over the holiday. According to the tool, a lot of people looked at it but no one bothered to review it even though I had it finished well in advance of the date I was asking for. That date passed. Another week passed, with no one bothering to look.
Finally, on January 16, three weeks after it had been nominated. someone took pity on it and passed it. It wound up being the most-viewed hook in that set, even though it wasn't the picture hook.
I remember that experience well; it's not the first time this has happened for an article I've developed that shouldn't have been too difficult to review. I try to return the favor ... I generally make a point of finding the oldest unreviewed single-article nomination I can find when submitting my own hooks. In this case, the nomination for "Ribs" had been sitting around for even longer than my nomination for dump months had (Why, I can't tell. It's an English-language song by a singer who just won big at the Grammys, the article is fairly short and the sources easy to review; I can't imagine how that could have daunted anyone).
If we want to be strict about enforcing our deadlines, however artifactual they are, fine. But we then owe it to nominators to review their submissions in as timely a fashion as we ask that they submit them. If we make them hurry up and wait, we cannot be surprised when people support the perennial proposals to get DYK off the main page and replace it with something else with a higher standard of review, like GAs. Daniel Case (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Gee. I try very hard to make sure that what I nominate for the main page does not look like crap when it gets there (unlike some other frequent nominators here who, once they get past 5K and have a citation for the hook fact and nothing else, move on to something else and leave the rest of us to clean up the mess). Generally this has been appreciated. I have in the past advocated for longer deadlines to promote the creation of better quality articles for the feature, but have not found much support (The deadline was justifiable in the past when we were likely to have shortages of quality hooks, but no one could seriously argue that's a problem anymore).
- Daniel, people who nominate articles for DYK are expected to keep track of what's going on with their own nominations. It is a courtesy extended by many reviewers to ping a nominator's talk page, not a requirement. (As it happens, I answered the question; a personal reply wasn't necessary after all.) As for the decline, it's by the book: exceptions for late nominations are just that—exceptions, not the rule. You were two days late, and as the reviewer points out, you've done well over 200 DYK nominations and should know to submit nominations on time. Deadline leniency is an option under WP:DYKSG#D9, though by no means a requirement. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- I have no problem approving a 7-day nomination, especially one that has been fleshed out from a 4500-character page based on 4 sources to a more than 5x expansion based on dozens of sources. If only all DYK noms were as good. 5x expansion verified. Article is new enough, long enough, well-referenced. Spot checking of sources shows no close paraphrasing. I prefer ALT1; it reads more smoothly. Hook ref verified and cited inline. QPQ done. There is just the matter of a cite missing in the first paragraph under Opinion of the Court. Yoninah (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Done With this edit. Daniel Case (talk) 01:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
