Template:Did you know nominations/United States v. Cotterman
- The following discussion 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 Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
No mention of child pornography in the hook, article looks fine. Passing
United States v. Cotterman
[edit]- ... that U.S v. Cotterman decided that property presented for inspection at a United States border can be seized and held for a reasonable time to be sent elsewhere for further examination?
Created/expanded by Shaonbarman (talk). Nominated by Kaffyne (talk) at 05:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
At time of nomination, qualified based on length and newness: Prose size (text only): 4932 characters (800 words) "readable prose size". Article created by Shaonbarman on March 1, 2012. Plagiarism check shows no concerns: here, here, here, here. Text as it relates to the fact which the hook appears to be pulling from is supported by inline citations. Hook is properly formatted and neutral enough.
Article is not completely supported by inline references. At least one source is a law blog.
- Corrected areas that needed citations that was pointed out in the article. Writers of law blogs are knowledgeable in their fields (public defenders of appropriate circuit, law professors). Other blogs belong to reputable sources (Law school, EFF). Believe they should be allowed. If not, citations can be attributed to other sources used, mainly the court documents.Kaffyne (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Not sure hook is supported by text as "border search exception" is not a phrase that is connected to the text. Text says: "In the majority opinion, Judge Tallman agreed with the Government that border search doctrine allowed property to be transported to secondary site for examination. But, he did also state that the Government cannot seize property and hold it for "weeks, months, years on a whim", and therefore the courts will continue to determine whether searches and seizures are reasonable on a case-to-case basis"
Uncited content that strikes me as big potential BLP violation, including naming names related to child pornography. --LauraHale (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Added citations to areas pointed out. Not sure about what to do with naming Cotterman. The court documents refer to him and his wife by name, reference him within the context of this case and its accusations of child pornography, and are publicly available. Article does not have bias towards/against him based on his association with child pornography. Furthermore, Court documents explicitly state that of the pictures of child porn found on his laptop, Cotterman has been identified in some of them as the molester.Kaffyne (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Article has uncited bits that need citations. Big concern as these are likely WP:BLP violations. The proposed hook is not supported by the text. Alt hook needed or text altered to support the hook.
- Cited areas that needed citation. Changed hook to more accurately reflect text. Unable to workaround naming.Kaffyne (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
--LauraHale (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Not sure what is proper etiquette in responding to reviews, so I just directly edited hook, put my comments below each of yours and signed them. Will reformat if this is not right. Also leaving a note on your talkpage.
Thank you! Kaffyne (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Reasonably confident issues have been resolved. Given recent issues with the main page, this could probably use with a good look before moving to the prep area so there are two sets of eyes on the thing in terms of WP:BLP. --LauraHale (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)