Template:Did you know nominations/French ship Euryale (1863)
- 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 SL93 (talk) 09:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
French ship Euryale (1863)
- ... that a collision between the French ship Euryale and an American vessel at San Francisco ended in a US Supreme Court case? "United States Supreme Court THE SAPPHIRE(1870) Argued: Decided: December 1, 1870" from: "United States Supreme Court THE SAPPHIRE(1870) Argued: Decided: December 1, 1870". FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.
- ALT1:... that a US Supreme Court case involving the French ship Euryale considered if a case where Napoleon III was a litigant could continue after he was deposed? "2. Whether, if rightly brought, the suit had not become abated by the deposition of the Emperor Napoleon III." from: "United States Supreme Court THE SAPPHIRE(1870) Argued: Decided: December 1, 1870". FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.
- ALT2:... that a US Supreme Court case involving the French ship Euryale considered if Napoleon III, as a foreign emperor, could bring cases in American courts? "1. The right of the Emperor of France to have brought suit in our courts." from: "United States Supreme Court THE SAPPHIRE(1870) Argued: Decided: December 1, 1870". FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.
Created by Dumelow (talk). Self-nominated at 08:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC).
Article is new enough and long enough. I am a little concerned about how #4 is used, seems like we are analyzing a primary source (court ruling) there, even if it seems correct. I don't have access to the other sources. No copyvio or plagiarism that I can see. Each hook seems roughly equal to me, the third is perhaps the most interesting. Seems neutral and moderately interesting. QPQ is done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus, thanks for the review. I've tightened the wording of the article a little to make it clear that the statements are taken from the court records. I think we are OK to use the proceedings of the court this way as long as it is clearly attributed. I am happy to get other opinions on this - Dumelow (talk) 15:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- No comments so far. I'll see if Fram has an opinion on the matter, but if no problems subsist we can probably approve this one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus, thanks for the review. I've tightened the wording of the article a little to make it clear that the statements are taken from the court records. I think we are OK to use the proceedings of the court this way as long as it is clearly attributed. I am happy to get other opinions on this - Dumelow (talk) 15:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Dumelow and Jo-Jo Eumerus: Any updates on this? Fram never responded. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)