Template:Did you know nominations/OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs

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 The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that the Supreme Court of the United States recently held that plaintiffs cannot sue foreign sovereigns for injuries that are based upon conduct that occurs solely in a foreign country?

• Reviewed: Casey Conway

Created by Notecardforfree (talk). Self-nominated at 22:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC).

• If the primary hook is too boring for people, you could also try these hooks:

• ALT1: ... that one commentator suggested a recent United States Supreme Court ruling has a "larger meaning"?
• ALT2: ... that one commentator described a recent United States Supreme Court ruling as "less momentous than we might have expected"?

Thanks in advance to whomever reviews this. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: There was plenty of prose which was flagged in Earwig's copyvio detector. After filtering out quotations and long pronouns, I found only a few phrases. There doesn't appear to be any copyright violation since they tend to be very short and can only be worded one way e.g. "from a Massachusetts-based travel agent". Also, I would go with the original hook, as it is the most useful. I haven't assessed the other two hooks. Jolly Ω Janner 23:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Note: I've struck the unreviewed hooks. (I agree they're not nearly as good as the original: not as interesting, and both commentators seems to prefer the obscure.) BlueMoonset (talk) 05:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)