Talk:Alabama v. North Carolina

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Alabama v. North Carolina received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

A fact from Alabama v. North Carolina appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 30 December 2018 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that in 2010, the US Supreme Court heard an original jurisdiction case in which four states sued North Carolina for refusing to return the money they had invested in a failed waste facility?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2018/December. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alabama v. North Carolina.

Wikipedia

DYK

... that in 2010 the United States Supreme Court heard Alabama v. North Carolina, an original jurisdiction case over waste management? --DannyS712 (talk) 01:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
... that in 2010 the Supreme Court of the United States heard Alabama v. North Carolina, an original jurisdiction case over waste management? --DannyS712 (talk) 01:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
... that in 2010 the Supreme Court of the United States heard Alabama v. North Carolina, an original jurisdiction case over waste management? --DannyS712 (talk) 01:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
... that in 2010 the Supreme Court of the United States heard Alabama v. North Carolina, an original jurisdiction case involving five different U.S. states about how to throw things away?^[1] --DannyS712 (talk) 07:20, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
... that the 2010 United States Supreme Court case Alabama v. North Carolina came about after four states paid North Carolina $80 million for a failed waste management facility....and wanted their money back?^[1] --DannyS712 (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
... that the 2010 United States Supreme Court original jurisdiction case Alabama v. North Carolina came about after four states paid North Carolina $80 million for a failed waste management facility....and wanted their money back?^[1] --DannyS712 (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b ^c "Rights of states under waste disposal compact - SCOTUSblog". SCOTUSblog. 2010-01-11. Retrieved 2018-11-20.

The article looks in good order - interesting story, material cited and written neutrally and of size, but there must be a way to word the above hook more snazzily! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Would you be willing to help with that? I have never touched DYK before --DannyS712 (talk) 06:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyS712: ok I have had a go at writing a concise lead here. Does that summarise the facts well enough? Please change if I got it wrong... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:32, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about:

... that the 2010 United States Supreme Court case Alabama v. North Carolina came about after four states paid North Carolina $80 million for a failed waste facility....and wanted their money back?

or something catchy like that? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: how about the last one I put above? --DannyS712 (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I like that. Recommend mainspacing and nominating....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber:

Done would you be willing to review the article and assess it? I had it as "NA" because it was in my userspace, but it should probably get assessed (I'd say B or C, but since I wrote it I have a COI). Thanks for all the help. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it a C - is there anything on precedents or similar cases? Also legacy? Was it widely reported? Were there political ramifications? Also I don't get how far talks progressed on the facility...did it get a possible location etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:39, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Can anyone figure out how to add an image (File:Fig040.gif) with the caption "Current Interstate Compacts, including the Southeast Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Compact, the subject of this case." without messing everything up? --DannyS712 (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More detail?

I believe this article would benefit from a more detailed explanation of why the Supreme Court ruled the way it did — more than just saying the court "overruled all of the objections to the special master's reports". What legal principles were brought into play as part of the reasoning? Also, since this case happened in 2010, I would assume there is some amount of subsequent history to be told (i.e., what happened after the decision, and whether there was any followup litigation). — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 23:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[SCOTUSblog-1] "Rights of states under waste disposal compact - SCOTUSblog". SCOTUSblog. 2010-01-11. Retrieved 2018-11-20.

[1]