Template:Did you know nominations/Ninetieth Minnesota State Senate v. Dayton

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) 07:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Ninetieth Minnesota State Senate v. Dayton

(

)

Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton

... that Mark Dayton (pictured), during a then-ongoing lawsuit, said that legislative leaders had "lied to" him and the people of Minnesota? Full quotation: "I told them in my 40 years dealing with Minnesota government I have never ever been lied to, and the people of Minnesota have been lied to and the Supreme Court has been lied to about the predicament that my vetoes supposedly put the Legislature in." Source: [1]

Created by Ebbillings (talk). Self-nominated at 20:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC).

Article is new and long enough, I believe it's user's first entry to DYK so QPQ not needed. Artice is inline sourced to a number of newspaper articles; no copyvio; some small tendencies to close paraphrasing that are hard to avoid in these kind of articles bases on newspaper articles. (I quickly ran into the paywall for the Star Tribune articles). The photo is not in the article; otherwise fine. I believe the article is mostly neutral, though maybe slanting a bit towards Dayton? For instance: "Dayton wrote a letter explaining his vetoes; he sought to avoid a government shutdown while convincing legislative leaders to renegotiate provisions of the budgetary bills. Instead of acquiescing to the Governor's offer of negotiations, legislative leaders sued Dayton." I think the first sentence could be better written; and the last sentence should say something about why they sued, and might well leave out or rewrite "instead of acquiescing to the Governor's offer of negotiations". I also think the "Background" section should include some information about when this happened. As for the hook it's short enough. The source provided doesn't explicictly say "legislative leaders". I found another source which says this, but that source also says that the Republicans accused Dayton of not keeping his word "legislators accused Dayton of breaking his word while Dayton accused Republican leaders of lying to him over the last four months". So, I wonder if it's really neutral to have a hook only focusing on Dayton's accusation and not the accusation against him and invite nominator to comment on this. Iselilja (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Iselilja, for the review. I will endeavor to reply to your comments in order. Yes, this is my first DYK ~~review~~ nomination. (I could have been more explicit about that.) I have edited the article to include a couple of images, including the (pictured) image. (I would like to also add an image of Majority Leader Paul Gazelka for the sake of balance, but haven't found a way to do it that is visually appealing.) I will take some time to address your concerns regarding POV and reply once I have made some suitable edits and perhaps propose a few alternate hooks. In the latter regard, I am open to suggestions. ebbillings (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Iselilja, I have made additional changes to the article to address your concerns about its text. The new hooks (proposed below) should be more neutral. ebbillings (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
ALT1a: ... that in a recent court case, for the first time in its history, the Minnesota Supreme Court resolved a dispute between the Legislative and Executive branches of government?
ALT1b: ... that in a recent court case, the Minnesota Supreme Court resolved a dispute between the Legislative and Executive branches of government for the first time in its history? Source: The Ninetieth Minnesota State Senate, et al., v. Mark B. Dayton, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Minnesota, et al., 62-CV-17-3601 (2017); Quotation (used in article) supporting hook appears in page 3, paragraph 2 of the court document.

Thank you. I think it's now very fine. Artice is neutral and photo is included in article and acceptable in 100x100. As for the new hook proposals, it may not appear to be the most "hookish", but I think it is an interesting fact in a genuine way. The source is also cited directly in article. I prefer ALTIb, but both the new proposals (very similar) should be ok. Iselilja (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)