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 Desertarun (talk) 10:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
... that in California, the only way for litigants to appeal most pre-trial rulings before a final judgment – and the only way to appeal some rulings at all – is by suing the court that issued the order for a writ of mandate? Source: Cal. Code of Civil Procedure § 1085
Created by Amitabho (talk). Self-nominated at 06:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC).
@Amitabho: I suppose this is a uniquely appropriate article for me to review. Looks good; just two simple things: 1) The paragraph beginning An alternative writ and order to show cause needs a citation, per supplemental rule D2. 2) Per rule 3b, each fact in the hook needs to be in the article with a citation no later than the end of the sentence. So, just tack on a citation at the end of the following sentences: As such, the only way for most interlocutory decisions to be reviewed before trial is through ordinary mandate. and ...against the trial court as respondent, naming the other party as the real party in interest. Once you've fixed those minor issues, the article should be ready. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
@Amitabho: One more thing: Would you mind adding in "immediately" to the hook, e.g. "the only way for litigants to immediately appeal..."? Of course, one can challenge pre-trial rulings on appeal by simply waiting until after final judgment, as the source notes. I think adding "immediately" would remove any chance of misunderstanding. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
@Extraordinary Writ: Forgot to reply here. Yes, I edited the hook. 'Immediate' may be kind of misleading, because it implies urgency rather than an attempt to avoid unnecessary expense, so I used 'before a final judgment'. — Amitabho Chattopadhyaytalk 04:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
"Immediate" can in my view encompass either possibility, but I'm glad to take the clearer option. I changed the hyphens to endashes per MOS:ENDASH; with that, you are good to go.
Overall: New article; properly sourced, neutral, and sufficiently long. Earwig's tool suggests no copyright issues. The hook is interesting enough (I think the idea of suing your court would likely arouse the general public's curiosity), and it is backed up by sources in the article. As a first-time contributor to DYK, the nominator is exempt from the QPQ requirement. Thanks for writing this article! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
New article; properly sourced, neutral, and sufficiently long. Earwig's tool suggests no copyright issues. The hook is interesting enough (I think the idea of suing your court would likely arouse the general public's curiosity), and it is backed up by sources in the article. As a first-time contributor to DYK, the nominator is exempt from the QPQ requirement. Thanks for writing this article! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)