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) 07:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
... that in the Glik v. Cunniffe case, the court noted that "we have previously recognized that the videotaping of public officials is an exercise of First Amendment liberties"?
ALT1: ... that in Glik v. Cunniffe, the court noted that "we have previously recognized that the videotaping of public officials is an exercise of First Amendment liberties"?
Overall: Although this article has been through GA review, I rechecked core criteria. The legal cite system is unfamiliar to me, so I have to AGF on its formatting being proper. Earwig's copyvio machine shows a high paraphrase score (57.4%); however, an eyeball check of the results shows that the overlap in language is predominantly "mandatory language"–there are no synonyms for names of courts, specific legal terms, etc. There is no pattern of plagiarism or intentional paraphrasing. I must also AGF on GA review date, as that is not noted on the article talk page per custom. Suggested hook is amply cited, but a trifle long at 182 characters. Nevertheless, it is acceptable. I have pruned it into ALT1 above, subject to editors/nominator's agreement. Editors of this article should take pride in their topnotch coverage of an important civil rights issue.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for review and ALT1, which you can review as it is only a subset of the original, no new fact which would need a source. - The GA review is transcluded on the talk, btw. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Given that ALT1 is a condensation of ALT0, it is approved. Recommend ALT1 as hook to run. This nomination is GTG.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the thorough review, Georgejdorner. ALT1 looks good to me. Cheers, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Although this article has been through GA review, I rechecked core criteria. The legal cite system is unfamiliar to me, so I have to AGF on its formatting being proper. Earwig's copyvio machine shows a high paraphrase score (57.4%); however, an eyeball check of the results shows that the overlap in language is predominantly "mandatory language"–there are no synonyms for names of courts, specific legal terms, etc. There is no pattern of plagiarism or intentional paraphrasing. I must also AGF on GA review date, as that is not noted on the article talk page per custom. Suggested hook is amply cited, but a trifle long at 182 characters. Nevertheless, it is acceptable. I have pruned it into ALT1 above, subject to editors/nominator's agreement. Editors of this article should take pride in their topnotch coverage of an important civil rights issue.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Given that ALT1 is a condensation of ALT0, it is approved. Recommend ALT1 as hook to run. This nomination is GTG.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)