Template:Did you know nominations/United States v. Washington

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 ~ Rob^Talk 19:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

United States v. Washington[edit]

(

)

Men and women hauling a fishing net onto a beach on the Quileute Indian Reservation

... that United States v. Washington confirmed the rights of American Indians to fish (pictured) for salmon without a state license?

ALT1:... that United States v. Washington stopped the state of Washington from infringing on American Indian fishing rights (pictured)?
ALT2:... that federal officials enforced fishing regulations (pictured) following United States v. Washington?
Reviewed: David Larson (Template:Did you know nominations/David Larson)

Improved to Good Article status by GregJackP (talk). Self-nominated at 19:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC).

The recent GA status overrides need for newness, &c., and means of course that the page is well-cited throughout. This is an important article and a good one for DYK. My quibble is with the hooks. The question of a state licence isn't mentioned under Issue, Trial, or Holding, and the two suggested ALTs suffer from a real vagueness, in the context of a lawsuit. Several specific, concrete statements are cited in the article which would be fine as a hook - for instance, that Boldt found that the tribes' witnesses were more credible than those of the state. Moonraker (talk) 07:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

ALT3:... that after United States v. Washington, a Congressman said that "the fishing issue (pictured) was to Washington state what busing was to the East"?
ALT4:... that under United States v. Washington, American Indians have the right to take up to 50% of the salmon catch (pictured) every year?

Will these work? GregJackP Boomer! 08:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Good to go with Alt3, but Alt4 would need a slight correction, "the right to take" should be "the opportunity to take" (per the judgement of Boldt as cited under "Holding"). We can leave it to the volunteer closing the discussion to finalize the hook. Moonraker (talk) 08:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)