Template:Did you know nominations/Martin v Hearst Corporation

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) 06:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Martin v Hearst Corporation

(

)

~~... that in Martin v. Hearst Corp., the Second Circuit found that news stories cannot become defamatory based on the use of a criminal expungement clause?~~

Created by Rua2006 (talk). Nominated by Saf ucb (talk) at 00:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC).

Rua2006 created this article from scratch and moved it to mainspace on March 6. It's long enough and describes a notable topic. Rua2006 is a new user and therefore does not need to review another hook as quid pro quo.
The page is still listed as an "orphan". Someone, possibly Rua2006, could remedy this issue by linking to the article from elsewhere. Maybe on pages such as defamation or possibly Hearst Corporation.
The article is well-written and the lead is approachable for a reader who is not a legal eagle. Nicely done, Rua2006.
The article itself is heavily reliant on the court decision as a source. For example, the decision is the only source provided for the whole "Background" section (and it's invoked more than once per sentence). This is not ideal. Are there other sources discussing the facts of the case that could be used? Secondary sources would also be good to cite in the discussion of what the court's actual decision was. Though I trust the author's interpretion, it's generally good to use secondary sources for this sort of thing when available.
Commentary section is good. Could be more descriptive but certainly meets DYK standards. I think you do not need to cite the same article after each sentence if it's the sole source for the whole paragraph. But erring on the side of careful citations is good so I'm not complaining too much about that.
Overall, more sources are desirable, especially from non-blogs, to enhance the article and clearly establish notability. Law360 is not as good as a law review but would at least add some diveristy to the source type. (Here is one article from them and maybe there are others.)
I might also suggest a spicier hook. Such as:

Alt1 ... that according to Martin v. Hearst Corp., expungement of your criminal record does not entitle you to make old news disappear?

Or something along those lines. Thank you for this contribution, and I hope that finding some more sources will be amenable to you. (cc nominator Saf ucb) shalom, groupuscule (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I've struck ALT0 because it really doesn't make sense as stated (though it could be salvaged if necessary). ALT1 is much better. EEng (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Neither nominator nor creator have edited on Wikipedia since the review, and both are participants in a Cyber Law course, which in my experience means that they may not be back after having submitted the DYK nomination. I'm going to ping them both on their talk pages, and give them one week to respond here. If there is no response here by then, and the issues have not been addressed, the nomination will be closed. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

It'll be a shame if this can't be salvaged -- very interesting topic. EEng (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree, but if they don't return and no one else picks it up, we won't have much choice. Groupuscle's points are fairly typical of past DYKs by people taking this course that have failed: heavy reliance on the court decision for its sourcing, and hook interest and/or accuracy. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Give me a few days and maybe I can salvage it. EEng (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, EEng. Happy to wait in that case. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Excellent. Will jump back in to complete the review when you're ready. groupuscule (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry EEng, between the time I loaded this page and the time I pressed the 'edit' button, you'd put forward the offer. Glad you're on the case. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, dear. I've already dispatched the robot killer drone. I suggest you take cover. EEng (talk) 13:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

EEng, it's been over a week. Will salvage operations be starting soon, or have they proved infeasible? BlueMoonset (talk) 23:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Did a bit of copyediting and added Law360 for the hook. I would consider an appellate opinion to be a secondary, not primary, source as to the findings of fact made by a lower court. Mr. Reviewer, do your stuff. EEng (talk) 06:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Pinging groupuscule for that review. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Good to go: Alt1. Kudos to EEng for improving the article. At the moment I'm having some problems accessing the link provided for the decision. Not sure if that's because of the computer/browser I'm currently using. Also I'd recommend inserting a period and a space in the middle of "offensesConnecticut". But the article is readable and cited well enough. Many of the claims are still sourced to the court decision but none are too extraordinary. (For example, the mention of the "Moving Finger" actually comes with a footnote citing The Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám—that's not Wikipedia's exegesis.) I'm inferring that EEng still prefers Alt1. Thanks again to EEng and to Rua2006, who after all did a pretty good job but didn't stick around to complete the nomination. shalom, groupuscule (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

As reviewer you're allowed to make little fixes like offensesConnecticut. Subject to your objection I inserted old into ALT1, which I think gives it just the right tone. However, we're going to need someone other than you or me to approve it. Panyd? (We just need ALT1 checked.) EEng (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

for ALT1. The hook is backed up by the sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)