Template:Did you know nominations/Ilani Casino Resort
Appearance
- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
DYK toolbox |
---|
Ilani Casino Resort
[edit]- ... that the Ilani Casino Resort near La Center, Washington, was mired in a years-long legal battle over its construction that ended weeks before it opened? The Columbian
- ALT1:... that the Indian reservation for the Cowlitz Tribe of Washington state was established for the construction of a casino? Source: The Columbian
- Reviewed: Measure S
- Comment: Would be preferrable to have the hook up on April 24, the scheduled opening date of the casino.
Created by SounderBruce (talk). Self-nominated at 07:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC).
- The article is new enough and long enough. Everything is well-cited and written from a neutral point of view. I have some minor concerns about close paraphrasing which should be easy to address; see Earwig's report. It's mostly the section concerning the lawsuit, and it's hard to avoid given the legal jargon. Both hooks are verifiable; I think I'd prefer ALT1. QPQ confirmed. We're just about good to go here. Mackensen (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Mackensen: I took a look at the Earwig reports and saw only results that are either the names of organizations (e.g. Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. District Court) or common terms associated with Indian law (establish a reservation, land into trust). Is there a specific passage that you find problematic? I'd be happy to tweak. SounderBruce 02:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- The article is new enough and long enough. Everything is well-cited and written from a neutral point of view. I have some minor concerns about close paraphrasing which should be easy to address; see Earwig's report. It's mostly the section concerning the lawsuit, and it's hard to avoid given the legal jargon. Both hooks are verifiable; I think I'd prefer ALT1. QPQ confirmed. We're just about good to go here. Mackensen (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)