Template:Did you know nominations/R v R

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

R v R

(

)

... ~~that The Crown sued itself to see if a man can legally rape his wife? (He can't)~~

ALT1:... a man could not be found guilty of raping his wife in English law until the judgement of R v R?
Reviewed: Reich Harvest Thanksgiving Festival
Comment: The first is an April Fools Day hook (legal humour based on R means Regina in case law)

Converted from a redirect by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 18:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC).

The suggested hook is factually wrong (since the second R does not mean The Crown but is a means of anonymising the defendant to protect the victim; also no one was sued as it was a criminal case)) and running a rape-related 1st April joke hook would be a new low for DYK. No opinion yet on article or the alt hook. Bencherlite ^Talk 18:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Bencherlite: OK, I have struck those, can you review the alt then? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not sufficiently active at DYK these days to be comfortable in reviewing at present. I simply saw this in my watchlist when it was added to the nominations list, and thought I would check it because I recognised the case name - and then I commented simply to save DYK from accidental error. Someone else can take this from here. I would simply add that I would have thought that there were many more (and better) sources out there this important case. Bencherlite ^Talk 14:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

New review needed then. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I will review this then. MPJ-US 22:19, 7 March 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.

Invalid status "pass" - use one of "y", "?", "maybe", "no" or "again"

- just to be sure I have the bases covered and the bots pick up the right status. MPJ-US 22:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)