- 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 ~ RobTalk 08:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Feeder judge
edit
Judge Learned Hand
- ... that Judge Learned Hand (pictured) was one of the earliest feeder judges in the United States?
- Comment: Not particularly wedded to this hook. ÷seresin 04:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Created by Seresin (talk). Self-nominated at 04:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC).
Passes DYK criteria (long enough, new enough, no serious editorial or content issues) and the hook is cited. A well-written and well-sourced article; I learned something new today. I actually like the hook even if you are not wedded to it, especially because of this judge's applicably unusual name. The only issue is technical: References 5, 11, 12, 13, 18, 20, and 22 are causing errors, as clicking on their link does not lead the reader to their citation. I can help you with this error if you would like; I suggest separating the citations from the sources as I have done in the article of my DYN nomination above. When this is corrected I will be very happy to recommend this DYN. Prhartcom (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Fixed the Baum citation, but I can't figure out what is wrong with the Ward ones. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Well, the same errors are occurring with the same references. Separating the citations from the sources will correct what is wrong, I was just waiting for Seresin to return, who has not been active since nominating this. Prhartcom (talk) 12:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry for that; I pushed the article out just before I left the country for a vacation and haven't been very responsive. I know the references are something of a mongrel; I don't like the citation format where the system renders page numbers next to the footnote call, and I couldn't think of another way to cite to specific page numbers. Do you know of another way to make it work? ÷seresin 01:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Seresin, hope you are having a good vacation. I have just made the necessary corrections to the article. I had written some instructions for you then self-reverted them, as I learned it is possible to mix inline {{cite xxx}} template calls with inline {{sfn}} template calls (at first I had recommended you use one or the other, then learned it is possible to use both). The technical problem you had caused was mostly with your incorrectly formatted {{sfn}} template calls; it is necessary to include both authors, the year, and the correctly formatted page number parameter (this is the classic Harvard reference). The {{cite xxx}} templates also must format both authors correctly.
Good to go. Prhartcom (talk) 12:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry for that; I pushed the article out just before I left the country for a vacation and haven't been very responsive. I know the references are something of a mongrel; I don't like the citation format where the system renders page numbers next to the footnote call, and I couldn't think of another way to cite to specific page numbers. Do you know of another way to make it work? ÷seresin 01:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Well, the same errors are occurring with the same references. Separating the citations from the sources will correct what is wrong, I was just waiting for Seresin to return, who has not been active since nominating this. Prhartcom (talk) 12:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Fixed the Baum citation, but I can't figure out what is wrong with the Ward ones. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
