 | A fact from R v Zora appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 11 July 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Did you know nomination
edit- 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 Yoninah (talk) 22:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
( )
- ... that in R v Zora, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the offence of breaching bail conditions requires subjective mens rea? Source: R v Zora, 2020 SCC 14, at paragraph 4
- ALT1:... that R v Zora established that Canadian criminal law requires subjective mens rea for the offence of breaching bail conditions? Source: R v Zora, 2020 SCC 14, at paragraph 4
Created by AleatoryPonderings (talk). Self-nominated at 15:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC).
- Looks good. Meets newness and length criteria; text is well-cited and within policy; format and content of the hook are OK (I would not link to "crime" as the word is fairly common).
Neutralitytalk 16:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- Removed links – agree that that's superfluous. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I came by to promote this, but there are several paragraphs without any citations, per Rule D2. Yoninah (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: Thanks for flagging. Per this revision there should now be citations in every paragraph. Were there any particular claims that needed further verification, in your view? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, everything's great. Restoring tick per Neutrality's review. Yoninah (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- Looks good. Meets newness and length criteria; text is well-cited and within policy; format and content of the hook are OK (I would not link to "crime" as the word is fairly common).
