Template:Did you know nominations/South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.
- 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) 06:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.
[edit]- ... that the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to hear the first "kill-Quill" case to reach it...? (From First Digital Sales Tax Dispute Reaches U.S. Supreme Court: "South Dakota is the first of several expected cases to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit Quill. Similar “kill-Quill” lawsuits are pending in state courts in Alabama, Indiana, Tennessee, and Wyoming."; from [1]: "The U.S. Supreme Court will consider freeing state and local governments to collect billions of dollars in sales taxes from online retailers, agreeing to revisit a 26-year-old ruling that has made much of the internet a tax-free zone.")
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/HPgV-2
- Comment: I think the hook is rather hooky as "kill-Quill" sounds intriguing to readers. The phrase "has decided to hear" is used rather than "will hear" because it prevents adjacent wikilinks that would happen if "will hear" was wikilinked to the DYK article. "kill-Quill is an adjectival phrase to "case", so it is hyphenated.
Created by Masem (talk). Nominated by AHeneen (talk) at 00:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC).
- Not reviewing but commenting since I created the article and pinged on it: I would suggest we may need to tell the reader what Quill involves, so maybe "the first 'kill Quill' case, regarding taxation of Internet commerce, to reach it..." or something along those lines. --Masem (t) 00:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
New and long enough, QPQ satisfactory, within policy, Earwig detects no copyvios. I agree with Masem that, though "kill-Quill" is a catchy term, the hook as written is inscrutable to anyone who doesn't already know the context. It would work better if you added something like "referring to a previous case that did X" to explain the term. I also don't see the need to pipe the article title in this case. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)- Maybe something like this? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 18:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- ALT1: ... that in South Dakota v. Wayfair, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether to "kill Quill"?
- Might I suggest ALT2: ... that in South Dakota v. Wayfair, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether to "kill Quill", allowing states to collect sales taxes on e-Commerce? --Masem (t) 19:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- I like ALT1. Short, punchy, and clickable. If a user isn't familiar, he or she can click and find out. Neutralitytalk 22:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- If short and punchy works, that's just fine with me. (I'm used to ITN where blurbs shouldn't be second guesses). --Masem (t) 22:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Also, to help (it's not necessary) I've updated the Quill article to actually spell out the "kill Quill" phrase in the lede to help readers to find that quickly and understand the meaning. --Masem (t) 22:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry for the late return to this discussion. I like Alt1 better (if I'm not mistaken a new reviewer will be needed because a reviewer can't pass a hook they proposed). I actually think it is better to not explain what Quill means because the lack of explanation would pique the curiosity of more readers to click through to the article...it's more intriguing and more in the spirit of DYK, in my opinion. AHeneen (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Also, to help (it's not necessary) I've updated the Quill article to actually spell out the "kill Quill" phrase in the lede to help readers to find that quickly and understand the meaning. --Masem (t) 22:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- If short and punchy works, that's just fine with me. (I'm used to ITN where blurbs shouldn't be second guesses). --Masem (t) 22:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
New reviewer needed to check the ALT hooks. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Per the original reviewer, the article meets all the criteria. I believe Alt1 has the most appeal for being short, interesting, and for actually spelling out the name of the article being presented. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
