Talk:Wisconsin Department of Revenue v. William Wrigley Jr. Co.

A fact from Wisconsin Department of Revenue v. William Wrigley Jr. Co. appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 October 2008, and was viewed approximately 10,301 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the replacement of stale chewing gum, by a sales representative, led to the U.S. Supreme Court case of the Wisconsin Department of Revenue v. William Wrigley, Jr., Co.?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/October.

Wikipedia

U.S. Supreme Court cases Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Wisconsin Low‑importance

	Wisconsin portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Taxation (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.TaxationWikipedia:WikiProject TaxationTemplate:WikiProject TaxationTaxation

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

I don't know the outcome of the case, but someone has added a line refuting the rest of the article. I'm not reverting it, but I suspect it needs to be. Even if the case did go for Wisconsin, it shouldn't be worded "Actually the court sided with..." it should read that way from the start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.7.17.3 (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a horrible job, and one of the worst Main Page DYKs from SCOTUS I've ever seen. There's no discussion of the actual incident that gave rise to this case, no summary of the opinions much less a statement of who wrote them, and especially nothing that justifies the hook fact. A lot of this information isn't hard to look up, especially seeing as the findlaw link is right there. At the very least I will be adding to the infobox. Who approved this for DYK? It's very incomplete. Daniel Case (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did, but with a caveat over the hook, which I thought only just justified by the law report. I agree it is not great - I edited it myself, which is a real sign of problems in a US law article. Johnbod (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Horrible :/ Well as discouraging as that may be, it is quite a transition from my usual edits around here, so I'll try not to take that too personally. I'm trying my hand at article writing, and I was asked to submit this article to DYK. ^{XF Law}_{talk at me} 01:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]