Template:Did you know nominations/Miller v. Bonta
- 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 Kingsif (talk) 02:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Miller v. Bonta
- ... that in his ruling in Miller v. Bonta, Judge Roger Benitez compared AR-15s to Swiss Army knives? (Source: LA Times)
- ALT1:... that in his ruling in Miller v. Bonta, Judge Roger Benitez wrote that like Swiss Army knives, AR-15s were "good for both home and battle"? (Source: LA Times)
- Reviewed: Did you know nominations/Donato Palumbo
Updated by NDNSWMI (talk) and Mxn (talk). Nominated by AllegedlyHuman (talk) at 06:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC).
Date and length OK. However, @AllegedlyHuman: the hooks offered aren't cited inline in the article. A QPQ has been done and there is no close paraphrasing. The picture is not in the article so cannot be used (plus I don't think it's wise to put a picture of the judge which made this prima facie controversial case judgement). I do also have a concern that because this case can be appealed and we are still in that 30 day stay, I would hold off running this until after that date. I'm not too sure on American practice when it comes to reporting cases that have routes of appeal. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- I've now added the image and carried over the LA Times ref from the end of the paragraph to cite this inline. I am not aware of the DYK procedure for American court cases either, though I will note that neither hook concerns the actual decision in the case. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm also not too keen on using the judge's photo in the DYK context, especially in this case. Hopefully another blurb will run at the same time with a more interesting photo anyways. It crossed my mind to include a side-by-side of an AR-15 and a Swiss army knife, but on second thought, that would give the article a sarcastic tone. Even well after the appeal is filed, I think the blurb as written would still be accurate. It just might not be the latest ruling on the case. For ALT1, consider changing "said" to "wrote". – Minh Nguyễn 💬 19:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Done Changed "said" to "wrote", and removed the image. On second thought, I agree that the image isn't great for Main Page, for all the reasons mentioned in addition to the fact that it has a pretty low resolution anyway. I like the idea of showing both the gun and the knife but I also agree with your assessment that it may be seen as derisive. I'd really only recommend adding those in if you think there's a good chance people don't know what either "AR-15" or "Swiss Army knife" means, but even then that's what the links are for. While you're here, by the way, fantastic work on cranking out this article. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Good to go then. I think for the gun-knife photo, yes many people might not know what an AR15 is but most do know what a Swiss Army knife is. I'll leave it to the promoter to decide when to promote but i'd recommend it be done after the appeal period has lapsed. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
