Template:Did you know nominations/Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2013)

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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 02:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2013), Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2018)

( Back to T:TDYK )

( Article history links:

)

Fane Lozman's arrest in 2006

... that "That Certain Unnamed Gray, Two-Story Vessel Approximately Fifty-Seven Feet in Length" took Fane Lozman to the US Supreme Court once, and an allegedly retaliatory arrest (pictured) took him there again? Source: Jesse D. H. Snyder, What Fane Lozman Can Teach Us About Free Speech, 19 Wyo. L. Rev. 419 (2019).
- ALT1: ... that Fane Lozman, a "persistent gadfly", took Riviera Beach to the US Supreme Court once in 2013 for seizing his floating home and again in 2018 for arresting him (pictured), and won both times? Source: see above; also "persistent gadfly" per NYT
- Comment: 2013 one was mainspaced in the past 7 days. 2018 one was 5X'd in the past 7 days. I'd like to do at least some work on the Lozman article in the near future, so it might make sense to hold this for a bit; but submitting now, now that these two are both in presentable states.

Moved to mainspace by Tamzin (talk). Self-nominated at 22:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC).

Reviewing... – Muboshgu (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Both articles are DYK eligible, one as a userspace draft moved to mainspace and the other as a 5x expansion. Lozman's article is too long for a 5x expansion, but could be a GA DYK in the future with work. Both articles are long and sourced throughout, with at least one citation per paragraph. AGF on the court filings used as inline references. They appear to be written neutrally. One minor issue that I won't hold up approval for is The case was noted for in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the 2013 article lead, please change that per MOS:NOTED. ALT0 reads a little clumsy to me, and is also slightly above the max 200 characters. I prefer ALT1. The video is tagged as PD based on Florida statutes. User has one DYK credit, so this nom is exempt from QPQ review requirement. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
@Muboshgu: Thanks. I thought that MOS:NOTED applied to "noted that"-type constructions? To me "X was noted for" is shorthand for "observers took note of X for"... but I can switch to that expanded form if you'd like. Also, is ALT0 over the max? The submit script had it at 198 I think. I ask only because I think including the rather silly "name" of the not-vessel makes for a hookier hook. But ALT1 is definitely fine too. As to Lozman's article, yeah, I'd like to get that to GA at some point, but don't think I have the time now, sadly, so best to go ahead. If I do get some burst of energy to do that before this is promoted, I'll drop a note here and maybe we can work something out. Also, one more note: It was pointed out on the 2013 case's talk page that a picture of the floating home would help with the article, and I agree. Sadly, the picture used in the SCOTUS decision is unclear as to its provenance, and since SCOTUS has absolutely immunity from lawsuits there's no reason to think it's public domain or freely licensed. I reached out to Lozman in January and he agreed in principle to license some photos of it compatibly, but didn't reply to my most recent email about sorting that out... I'll give him a nudge, and hopefully we can manage that before this is promoted, but I guess we'll have to see. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)