Template:Did you know nominations/City News & Novelty, Inc. v. Waukesha

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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) 08:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

City News & Novelty, Inc. v. Waukesha

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that the United States Supreme Court dismissed an important First Amendment case after it was found to be moot?

Reviewed: New World Center

Created/expanded by Lord Roem (talk). Self nom at 05:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Long enough (just barely so) and new enough. However, the article does not support the hook's assertion that this was an "important First Amendment case." From sources, I learn that the Supreme Court accepted the case to address one of the three questions raised by the plaintiff, namely "whether the guarantee of a prompt judicial review that must accompany an adult business licensing scheme means a prompt judicial determination on the merits of a permit denial, or simply prompt access to judicial review." IMO, the article would benefit from some expansion, particularly to include some clearer discussion of the significance of the legal issue that it was supposed to address. Currently, the only source cited in the article is the actual decision. Addition of content referenced to secondary sources would lend additional credibility to the article (for example, this article, published before the Supreme Court decision, discusses the significance of the case). --Orlady (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I will add the secondary source you linked to - I think its great! Orlady, additionally let me note that the "important" aspect was something Justice Ginsburg said in her opinion. She wrote that she wanted to resolve the merits issue but couldn't because the application for the store was withdrawn.

I'll work to include the secondary source, and post here when it is ready. Thanks for reviewing, Lord Roem (talk) 01:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

. Secondary source included and "importance" aspect explained by both new source + Ginsburg opinion. I think its ready to be re-reviewed :) Lord Roem (talk) 01:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Good to go now. --Orlady (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)