A fact from TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp. appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 30 October 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Latest comment: 2 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion
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.
Overall: @KiraLiz1 Ok, so I feel as if there are many problems with the article. Earwig, a copyvio finder, finds that there is a 76% chance that this article has copyright violations. This alone would immediately prevent the article from being approved. However, the article itself only has 4 different sources which is way too low for an article like this. Finally, The hook itself suffers from a lack of context. Although the fact that the payout was 526 times larger than the compensatory damages is interesting the hook doesn't tell how much those compensatory damages were which gives the hook a lack on context. I'm not gonna fail this immediately but these points have to be addressed in order for the hook to be approved. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Onegreatjoke I did run the Earwig detector before submitting it and saw the same. However, the detected plagiarism is because the two high-chance sources are both the full text of the actual Supreme Court decision, which I quoted from in the article. There were unfortunately not that many scholarly sources on the topic.
@KiraLiz1 Alright, I think I can approve the article with the new hook. The hook is definitely much better than before. I'm going to assume good faith with the copyvio and lack of sources if what your saying is correct. Though next time please put the page number for your hook citation. Onegreatjoke (talk) 14:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
@|Theleekycauldron It looks like the paper was published by the University of Texas back in 1993 - the SSRN version was what I was able to access from behind a work firewall. I'm not actually sure what it is, to be honest. KiraLiz1 | she/her 20:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Onegreatjoke and Theleekycauldron: Hey, thanks for the reminder. Just looked during my time after work and I can't seem to find the actual paper published online outside of SSRN, though I did find a citation for it in the author's CV: "Supreme Court Review: Questions Linger on Punitives and Evidence, Nat'l L.J. S4 (Aug. 23, 1993)." It's also been referenced in another paper I hadn't found before by Cutter. KiraLiz1 | she/her 23:59, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
my apologies for holding this up for so long – it occurs to me, and someone confirmed off wiki, that this is probably a final print version given the age of SSRN versus this paper. So, good to go :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 17:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
@KiraLiz1 Ok, so I feel as if there are many problems with the article. Earwig, a copyvio finder, finds that there is a 76% chance that this article has copyright violations. This alone would immediately prevent the article from being approved. However, the article itself only has 4 different sources which is way too low for an article like this. Finally, The hook itself suffers from a lack of context. Although the fact that the payout was 526 times larger than the compensatory damages is interesting the hook doesn't tell how much those compensatory damages were which gives the hook a lack on context. I'm not gonna fail this immediately but these points have to be addressed in order for the hook to be approved. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
@KiraLiz1 Alright, I think I can approve the article with the new hook. The hook is definitely much better than before. I'm going to assume good faith with the copyvio and lack of sources if what your saying is correct. Though next time please put the page number for your hook citation. Onegreatjoke (talk) 14:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned that so much of the article is cited to an SSRN preprint, including the hook – is there a published version that can be cited? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
