- 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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 17:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Rex v Bourne
Sir Malcolm Macnaghten
- ... that the judge (pictured) in the 1938 King v Bourne trial recognised that performing an abortion might prevent a "physical or mental wreck"? Source: [1]
- ... ALT1 the judge (pictured) in the 1938 King v Bourne trial recognised that performing an abortion might protect the health of the mother?
- Reviewed: Merry Gang
- Comment: Still have some work to do here please, but can still be reviewed
Created by Whispyhistory (talk). Self-nominated at 19:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Rex v Bourne; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
| 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
|
|
|
| Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
|
|
|
Overall: 
The article was created on September 9, and nominated seven days later, therefore it is new enough. Length and sourcing are adequate. The article is neutral in tone. I found no plagiarism concerns. I note that the Earwig tool highlighted many areas, but these are legal terms and direct quotes that properly attributed and necessary to the text. Both proposed hooks are interesting, mentioned in the article, and verified by the cited source. All images used in the article are licensed to the public domain on the Commons. The nominated image is used in the article, clear at a low resolution, and could enhance the hook. The QPQ requirement is complete. Flibirigit (talk) 01:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Reviewing... Flibirigit (talk) 00:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
The article was created on September 9, and nominated seven days later, therefore it is new enough. Length and sourcing are adequate. The article is neutral in tone. I found no plagiarism concerns. I note that the Earwig tool highlighted many areas, but these are legal terms and direct quotes that properly attributed and necessary to the text. Both proposed hooks are interesting, mentioned in the article, and verified by the cited source. All images used in the article are licensed to the public domain on the Commons. The nominated image is used in the article, clear at a low resolution, and could enhance the hook. The QPQ requirement is complete. Flibirigit (talk) 01:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)