Template:Did you know nominations/Title 42 appointment
- 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 Yoninah (talk) 11:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Title 42 appointment[edit]
- ... that the U.S. Public Health Service can hire, but not fire, scientists "without regard to the civil-service laws" using a Title 42 appointment?
- Source: [1], p. 17: "...Congress intended to 'provide federal agencies with the flexibility to hire Service Fellows without regard to the normal hiring formalities of the Civil Service,' but that Congress did not intend to disregard the civil service laws in their entirety."
- Reviewed: Belzer v. Bollea
Moved to mainspace by Antony-22 (talk). Self-nominated at 05:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC).
Article length more than enough. Article creation date in main space versus filing date okay. Article neutrality and sourcing are okay; I don't see any visible sign of copyvio issues. QPQ done with diligence. Hook length is okay. Hook interest is about as good as it's going to get out given this must be one of WP's driest articles ever. Hook sourcing is a bit tricky: you get to the pdf shown here in the nomination by clicking the 'full report' pdf button in fn 1. But it does get you there, so the DYK requirements are met. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
