Template:Did you know nominations/Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs v Yunus Rahmatullah
The following is an archived discussion of Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs v Yunus Rahmatullah's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know
(talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.
The result was: promoted by — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC).
Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs v Yunus Rahmatullah[edit]
- ... that in Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs v Yunus Rahmatullah the UK Supreme Court ruled that the detention of a suspected al-Qaeda fighter, prima facie, breached the Geneva Convention?
Created/expanded by Francium12 (talk). Self nom at 22:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
This article is new enough and long enough. The hook fact is appropriately referenced. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Pulling hook out of prep area because I find that the article lacks sufficient context to be considered something more than a stub. Article gives the bare bones of the court decision (largely in quotations), but if I hadn't also looked at sources I would have a very hard time figuring out what the significance of the case is/was. --Orlady (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- I made a couple of edits to the article to provide a little more context, but I'd still like the article to provide some additional factual context. For example, this might include (1) information about the legal relationships between the US and UK in Iraq at the time of this man's capture and imprisonment, (2) a link to a Wikipedia article about the US occupation of Iraq, (3) some information about the appeal of the human rights group Reprieve that was dismissed by the court, and (4) an indication of what happened (or didn't happen) to Mr. Rahmatullah as a result of the court decision. Items 3 and 4 are probably the most important missing elements. I think the information is in the cited sources. --Orlady (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Orlady has improved the article and I believe it now has sufficient context to be understandable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
