Talk:Tandon v. Newsom

Did you know nomination

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 Rjjiii talk 00:27, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source: SCOTUSblog article ("Tandon steals Fulton's thunder: The most important free exercise decision since 1990")
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: This is a joint nomination from SilverLocust and myself. (He wrote ALT0, and I love it.) We both have fewer than 5 previous nominations, but I'm using my own "freebie".
Created by HouseBlaster (talk) and SilverLocust (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:59, 30 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

GA review

Passed. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tandon v. Newsom/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: HouseBlaster (talk · contribs) 00:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 02:48, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]


I'll take a look at this.

  • shadow docket is linked three times in the body; should just be linked on the first time. It isn't however linked in the lede, even though it should be.
  • I don't think you need the two sets of quotation marks with "neutral' and 'generally applicable'" - just say "neutral" and "generally applicable"
  • Why is blueprint in quotes? Its use in a metaphorical sense is arguably the more common usage at this point.
  • Great writing in the legal background section.
  • Images and alt text are good
  • I think linking midnight might be overlinking
  • Shouldn't certiorari be italicized?

Sources are generally formatted correctly, although they were missing a refbegin and refend tag, which I added. Why is the date before the journal name in Laycock, but not in any of the other ones? (Also, personal preference: if you're sorting alphabetically by last name and referring to authors by surname in the article, it makes sense to put the names as "Surname, Personal Name".)

Spot checks to come. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:48, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking this up. Responses:
  • Consistent with MOS:REPEATLINK, shadow docket isn't linked more than once per level-2 section. I've added it in the intro like you suggest, but I would like to keep it linked when used in a new section. My impression is that people often skip to a section, and it seems like a term that is particularly worth linking wherever the reader first sees it.
  •  Done.
  • I have now put in the full name, Blueprint for a Safer Economy, referencing the Wilson source.
  • Thank you.
  • Thanks.
  • Sure, I felt a tad silly linking that. Removed.
  •  Done.
The citations are based on Bluebook format. Per its rule 3.1,

If no volume number is given but the volume is readily identifiable by year, use the year of the volume as the volume number and omit the year after the pincite:

  • Thomas R. McCoy & Barry Friedman, Conditional Spending: Federalism's Trojan Horse, 1988 Sup. Ct. Rev. 85, 88.
– JensonSL (SilverLocust) 04:20, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for picking this up, Generalissima! :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 07:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Generalissima: Just want to make sure this is still on your radar :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ach! My apologies, I had forgotten I never finished this!

Source review

  • Vladeck 2022
    • 5a and 5b quotes check out
    • 9 checks out.
    • 16 checks out.
    • 19a and 19b check out.
  • 56 check out.
  • Oleske 2021
    • 23 checks out.
    • 52 checks out.
    • 53 checks out.
    • 54 checks out.
  • Blackman 2021
    • 21 checks out.
    • 35 a, b, c, d, and e check out (do these all need to be cited separately in a row like this?)
    • 48 checks out.
  • Hulter 2023
    • 10 checks out
    • 11a and 11b check out

Seems like great source agreement, I don't really have any problems here. I can see the reasoning for the citation 35 repetition so I'll pass this! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tandon_v._Newsom