Template:Did you know nominations/Judiciary of the Philippines
- 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 SL93 (talk) 16:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Judiciary of the Philippines
- ... that within the Judiciary of the Philippines sharia courts have been established to rule on Islamic personal law? Source: page 42
- ALT1:... that the Judiciary of the Philippines includes special courts dedicated to corruption and taxes? Source: page 43
- ALT2:... that the powers given to the Judiciary of the Philippines allow the Supreme Court to overrule political decisions and create novel law? Source: pages 357, 367
Created by Chipmunkdavis (talk) and Howard the Duck (talk). Nominated by Chipmunkdavis (talk) at 16:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC).
- Welcome suggestions on potential pipes for Judiciary of the Philippines, such as "Philippine Judicial System". CMD (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Article is new enough, long enough, and adequately sourced. Some parts of the article may need further clarification for non-Filipino readers (for example, "has been rejected by the President" could instead be "can be rejected by the President"), and a link to Impeachment of Renato Corona could be included in the mention of Corona in the body. ALT1 is cited inline and verified; however, the actual sentence that discusses ALT0 (i.e. about sharia courts) needs a footnote, as right now one isn't present. In addition, Earwigs is detecting some overlap with this link, and while most appears to be due to terms, there is at least one paragraph that appears to be a very close paraphrase. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. Annoyed at that earwig-detected paragraph, it's a list and doesn't even use the cacj link as source. It does appear close though, so I'll have a think about it. CMD (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Narutolovehinata5, I tracked down the cause. Both were taking directly from the Constitution. This seems reasonable for the article, so I kept the quotes and added quotation marks, along with adding a direct citation to the primary source (the Constitution) in addition to the existing secondary source. Outside of these quotes, I have added to and restructured the relevant section, as well as adding a bit more Sharia information. I also added an ALT2 for consideration based on the expanded information. For clarity I have no hook preference, the presented order is arbitrary. CMD (talk) 12:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'm a bit tired right now and I've been busy these past few days, but I'll try to finish the review tomorrow. For what it's worth, I'm not really sure if any of the hooks are that interesting, as apart from the Sharia hook (which may surprise readers given that the Philippines is a predominantly Christian country), the hooks don't really appear to be about facts that are unique to or unusual about the Philippine judiciary. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Apologies for the delay! Just waiting on the new hook suggestions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- ALT3:... that the Judiciary of the Philippines has recognized the legal standing of dolphins? [1]
- ALT4:... that the Judiciary of the Philippines was the first of any country to create specific procedures for environmental cases? [2] CMD (talk) 07:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Both ALT3 and ALT4 are far better than the original proposals and either can be used (promoter's choice). Both are cited inline and verified, and since a QPQ has now been accomplished, this is now good to go. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
