Talk:Henderson v. Box

Did you know nomination

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 Z1720 (talk) 23:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Henderson v. Box was a case that ruled the state of Indiana must list same-sex parents on their child's birth certificate? Source: https://www.dewittllp.com/news-education/posts/2020/12/21/u.-s.-supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-challenge-to-same-sex-parent-birth-certificates-box-v.-henderson
  • ALT0a: ... that the 2020 case Henderson v. Box held that the state of Indiana must list same-sex parents on their child's birth certificate?
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Adele Nicoll

Created by ShreyasMinocha (talk). Nominated by JamieF (talk) at 23:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC).

• QPQ done, hook is interesting and concise, material is adequately sourced, material is presented neutrally in both hook and article, formatting in hook is accurate, article is long enough. However, the nomination occurred just barely over the deadline if my calendaring is correct. I would pass it even with this just slight hiccup, but someone more experienced than myself should review this first. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:58, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Theleekycauldron: I think your insight might be necessary here. This issue is just out of my depth. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

  What a coincidence, Pbritti! I was about to publish a review of my own, you beat me to it :) My original review:

General eligibility:

• New enough: - IAR, just a few hours late
• Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - Looks like you're missing a citation for last two sentences of the "Background" paragraph. Are the NCL, DeWitt LLP, and lawandcrime.com reliable sources?
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Nice work, JamieF! I suggested an ALT0a that I think reads a bit better – we're almost there :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

A couple hours late is peanuts, it's not uncommon to get DYK noms anywhere between 1–4 days late (the latter being less likely to get by). I'd be happy to let this go on IAR, but I have some sourcing concerns that I'd like to be resolved first. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: Ok that is just eery lol. In any case, glad you support passing it. On the sourcing, I can vouch for NCLR and DeWitt. Both are well-established legal entities and with experience in these matters. They may have their own agendas (political and capital, respectively), but they're solid. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

All right, I trust your judgement – we're just waiting on a resolution for lawandcrime.com and the two unsourced sentences, and then we'll be good to go! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Pbritti & theleekycauldron! I've replaced the lawandcrime citation and cited the afore mentioned sentences. This was my first time nominating - I appreciate the learning experience. Thank you!! JamieF (talk) 00:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

well then! Seems we're good to go, nice work and welcome to DYK! :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)