- 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 Yoninah (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
... that the US Supreme Court held in 1959 that it is unconstitutional for a prosecutor to knowingly use false testimony, even if it does not directly relate to the defendant's guilt? "In Napue v. Illinois, the Supreme Court found that prosecutors are prohibited from using false testimony both when the false testimony applies to the defendant’s guilt and when it applies to a witness’s credibility" ([1], click "Download")
- ALT1:... that ...? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)
Created by L235 (talk). Self-nominated at 05:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough
|
|
|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
|
|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
|
- Cited:
 - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
- Interesting:
|
Invalid status "[[File:Symbo...p.svg|16px]]" - use one of "y", "?", "maybe", "no" or "again"
- @Catrìona: Hi! QPQ was linked above – Template:Did you know nominations/Papal conclave, 1689. I don't believe anything in the article constituted close paraphrasing, but even if you think it was close paraphrasing of the decision, it would be permissible because the source is public domain (as a work of the US federal government) and the article accords with Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and Wikipedia:Plagiarism (footnote 8 uses {{PD-notice}}). Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- Ok—approved. Let me know if you come up with another hook. Catrìona (talk) 13:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Catrìona: Is there anything still wrong with the current hook? Seems fine to me. Mz7 (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Mz7: There's nothing wrong with the current hook, but Kevin said that he thought it was "lame" and was considering coming up with another one. Catrìona (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- Let's just go ahead with the current hook – I can't think of anything else.
Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- I have no objection to that. Catrìona (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- Could you add a tick in your inline comments here so the bot picks it up? Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)=
- Passed. Catrìona (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
