Template:Did you know nominations/Protection Court
- 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 Cielquiparle (talk) 15:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Protection Court
... that Judge Carroll Kelly from the show Protection Court faced allegations that were later dropped which were partly about filming litigants without their consent?Source: https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ethics-case-tossed-against-judge-over-filming-of-reality-tv-showin-her-courtroom- ALT1:
... that Judge Carroll Kelly from the show Protection Court faced allegations of filming litigants without their consent?Source: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article242546006.html - ALT2:... the show Protection Court continued to air episodes during an investigation launched by the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission which claimed litigants were allegedly filmed without their consent? Source: https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ethics-case-tossed-against-judge-over-filming-of-reality-tv-showin-her-courtroom
- Reviewed:
- Comment: First nomination using a helper script. Please ping me if there are any requirements I might have missed or accidentally got wrong. Thanks.
Created by Huggums537 (talk). Self-nominated at 14:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Protection Court; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
@Huggums537: I'm counting 455 prose characters on April 1 and 2726 prose characters in the current revision so it qualifies as a fivefold expansion and the hook is interesting. However, before this is approved the excessive quote, citation needed, etc. tags will need to be taken care of.--NØ 17:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- MaranoFan, I've prepared an alternate nomination with better sourcing and a shorter quote. I also want to point out this is a recent move from draft space so it is double qualified since it meets the criteria for two of the requirements (expanded and "new"). Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Even better, and I just caught the discussion on the article talk page. Just waiting for the excessive quote/cn banners to be resolved now.--NØ 18:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Ok. I think we got it cleaned up. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
I can now approve this.--NØ 20:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Great. Thanks very much. There is another editor who has been helping me improve the article, but likes to use templates a lot, and I left them a note on their talk page letting them know the templates are affecting the situation, so maybe the article will become more stable from here on out. The page view counter isn't working either, so I have no idea what's going on with that. Thank you for your patience. Huggums537 (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- DYK is generally wary of hooks about people being accused of criminal offences per WP:DYKCRIT #4a: "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided." ALT0 might be alright, since it says the charges were dropped, but I'm going to boldly strike ALT1. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Huggums537 and MaranoFan:
Sojourner in the earth is absolutely correct that DYK takes a very close-to-the-vest approach to hooks about living people – I'd go so far as to strike ALT0 as well. We'll need some new hooks to move this nomination forward. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 17:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- theleekycauldron, Sojourner in the earth, and MaranoFan. It was a super easy fix to turn this into something that is not about any one living person at all. I've made the hook ALT2 I hope you all will be pleased with. Thanks! Huggums537 (talk) 02:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Huggums537 and MaranoFan:
- DYK is generally wary of hooks about people being accused of criminal offences per WP:DYKCRIT #4a: "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided." ALT0 might be alright, since it says the charges were dropped, but I'm going to boldly strike ALT1. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Great. Thanks very much. There is another editor who has been helping me improve the article, but likes to use templates a lot, and I left them a note on their talk page letting them know the templates are affecting the situation, so maybe the article will become more stable from here on out. The page view counter isn't working either, so I have no idea what's going on with that. Thank you for your patience. Huggums537 (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Ok. I think we got it cleaned up. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Even better, and I just caught the discussion on the article talk page. Just waiting for the excessive quote/cn banners to be resolved now.--NØ 18:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- MaranoFan, I've prepared an alternate nomination with better sourcing and a shorter quote. I also want to point out this is a recent move from draft space so it is double qualified since it meets the criteria for two of the requirements (expanded and "new"). Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
