A fact from O'Halloran and Francis v. United Kingdom appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 26 February 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement
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.
I will ask if anyone wants to propose an alt hook. The current one is interesting and correct, but has the potential to cause outcry over removal of rights. There is the possibility it was intended to be so deliberately provocative. I will try to propose an alt myself if nobody else wants to. Kingsif (talk) 03:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif: - I’m uninvolved here, and my thoughts are that if this (or similar content) isn’t the hook then we’ve kind of failed, as the content in the hook above is basically the most important part of the article, and it’s interesting, and it’s rated PG. starship.paint (exalt)14:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of hooks are not the most important part of the article. It's not a failure to omit the in brief of an article, and especially when taking away the context of the article puts such a brief in a grey area. Kingsif (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from being confusingly and ambiguously written, the original hook is misleading because it says the court ruled against British drivers specifically, when so far as I can determine, the ruling applies to the EU generally, not just the British. So the hook needs a rewrite, I will try to come up with one a little later. Gatoclass (talk) 08:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I find the hook to be interesting and generally clear, but isn't the ruling also specifically against car owners rather than drivers? Retswerb (talk) 06:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Narutolovehinata5, the issue is no longer with the hook, a replacement for which should not be that difficult. The problem is that I am not altogether satisfied with the shape of the article. Not that I've found any errors, it's just that I find it a bit random and lacking in clarity. I did begin rewriting it, but a fair bit is sourced to the original court summary, and legalese can be pretty difficult to follow and get right, and additionally, I have a number of other things on my plate off-wiki right now. So it might be a few more days before I can get back to this, apologies for the delay. Gatoclass (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gatoclass: Do we ask if, with no or little outside coverage, the court case isn't significant enough for its own Wikipedia article (I think I mentioned this at the main DYK talk - that C of E likely was looking for cases that could be provocative to create articles about, whether they really pass GNG or not) Kingsif (talk) 22:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IMO it has enough independent reliable sources to pass GNG. If you think otherwise, you are free to nominate it for AFD, but I think it would be a waste of time. A nominator's motives for writing an article are immaterial from a policy standpoint. Gatoclass (talk) 07:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gatoclass: In any case, given that The C of E cannot return to the nomination and address any concerns, you will probably need to adopt this one, and that any concerns will need to be addressed soon given that the nomination has already been up for a few weeks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gatoclass: I see you've done a fair amount of massaging to the article; I just made a couple of changes as well and am interested in seeing this one move forward. I have no DYK experience but will adopt if you're not inclined to do so. Retswerb (talk) 07:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adopting this. I'm still concerned with this phrasing, that it may be provocative over the idea of stifled freedoms. Perhaps even just a rewording to "must answer" would be an improvement. Kingsif (talk) 11:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1 is the better hook IMO because "must answer" in ALT2 does not get the point across with the same clarity. This was an important case precisely because the EU court for the first time recognized that the right to remain silent is not an absolute right, so I think that needs to be reflected in the hook. Gatoclass (talk) 04:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's get another opinion in on whether we should be allowing potentially-flamey "in X circumstances, you no longer have rights" to hit the MP. Is there anything else in the article that could be a hook, to avoid the issue completely, because, er, there is absolutely zero requirement for hooks to be "the main point" of the article, and they're usually better when they're not. Kingsif (talk) 11:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's "flamey" about it? It's a simple statement of fact. And it happens to be interesting, which is something that the other hook is not. Owners must tell the cops who was driving? Who didn't know that? Apart from which "must answer" is a little vague, "go to hell" would qualify as an "answer". Gatoclass (talk) 13:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah, obviously... I'm not going to approve that hook, and this isn't a consensus thing - someone else can "re-use" my check of the other DYK requirements, but someone who hasn't proposed a hook has to approve that. Kingsif (talk) 06:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's got to be a better way to do this, it's now (appropriately) redlinked but shows the double brackets on both sides of the name. I tried various solutions but haven't found a fix. (EDIT: Also posed the question over on the template talk page, maybe we can get some help there.) Retswerb (talk) 08:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
I will ask if anyone wants to propose an alt hook. The current one is interesting and correct, but has the potential to cause outcry over removal of rights. There is the possibility it was intended to be so deliberately provocative. I will try to propose an alt myself if nobody else wants to. Kingsif (talk) 03:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Apart from being confusingly and ambiguously written, the original hook is misleading because it says the court ruled against British drivers specifically, when so far as I can determine, the ruling applies to the EU generally, not just the British. So the hook needs a rewrite, I will try to come up with one a little later. Gatoclass (talk) 08:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Good for me. Besides a possibly too-long lead, article now meets all requirements. Kingsif (talk) 09:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Let's get another opinion in on whether we should be allowing potentially-flamey "in X circumstances, you no longer have rights" to hit the MP. Is there anything else in the article that could be a hook, to avoid the issue completely, because, er, there is absolutely zero requirement for hooks to be "the main point" of the article, and they're usually better when they're not. Kingsif (talk) 11:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
