Talk:Widener University Commonwealth Law School

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) 13:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC) [reply ]

• ... that Widener University School of Law split off into two distinct law schools – Widener University Commonwealth Law School (pictured) and Widener University Delaware Law School on July 1, 2015? Source: Widener University separates its law schools https://www.pennlive.com/midstate/2015/03/widener_university_separates_i.html
  • ALT1:... (削除) that Don McGahn is a Widener University Commonwealth Law School (pictured) alumnus? (削除ここまで) Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_McGahn

Created by MVaughanK (talk). Self-nominated at 19:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC).[reply ]

• Neither of these proposed hooks is interesting or unusual. Information in the hooks needs to be in the nominated article. Information in the nominated article has to be supported by an inline citation. b uidh e 08:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC) [reply ]

@MVaughanK: Not involved in this nomination. Courtesy ping to ask nominator to return to this nomination. Cowlibob (talk) 15:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC) [reply ]

@Buidhe and Cowlibob: The nominator hasn't been active on-Wiki in several weeks, and apart from a couple of edits around December 10 has mostly been inactive since the day of the nomination. If this is to proceed, it may have to do so without them. Narutolovehinata5 ^{t c csd new} 01:59, 25 December 2019 (UTC) [reply ]

• @MVaughanK: You going to address this? --evrik ^(talk) 04:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC) [reply ]

I think the only hook option I can think of at this point is a variation of ALT1:

ALT1a ... (削除) that Don McGahn, who previously served as Donald Trump's White House Counsel, is a Widener University Commonwealth Law School (pictured) alumnus? (削除ここまで)

I don't think McGahn is well-known outside the US or even outside US politics followers, so connecting to a more well-known name might be a better option at this point. Narutolovehinata5 ^{t c csd new} 10:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC) [reply ]

@Narutolovehinata5, Buidhe, Cowlibob, and Evrik: I have now cited the statement: Special:Permalink/934535294#cite_note-FOX-23 –MJL ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 02:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC) [reply ]

• ALT2 ... that Widener University Commonwealth Law School (pictured) was created because of a perceived need for legal education in Harrisburg, the capital city of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania? Source: Says of founder Anthony J. Santoro: "He really had a vision for going to Harrisburg because he saw a need there for legal education." Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 15:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC) [reply ]

• --evrik ^(talk) 16:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC) [reply ]

• (削除) ALT3 ... that Widener University Commonwealth Law School (pictured) is not in the Commonwealth or the Commonwealth? (削除ここまで)
• (削除) ALT4 ... that Widener University Commonwealth Law School (pictured) is not in the Commonwealth of Nations or the Commonwealth of Independent States? (削除ここまで)
• ALT5 ... that Widener University Commonwealth Law School (pictured) is one of two independent law schools run by Widener University?

ALT3 and 4 are admittedly not terribly relevant to the article topic; ALT5 seems a bit extraordinary. HLHJ (talk) 19:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC) [reply ]

HLHJ, ALT5 is ok, but it needs an inline citation in the article. b uidh e 19:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC) [reply ]

Buidhe, it is now cited. HLHJ (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC) [reply ]

HLHJ, the sentence, "The law school became one of two connected law school campuses operated by Widener University." still lacks an inline citation. It doesn't need to be cited in the lead but all body sentences need a citation per DYK rules. b uidh e 01:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC) [reply ]

Buidhe, it is now cited in the body as well as the lede. The article does not appear to have any other uncited sentences. I have not checked every fact in the article, and am not adopting this nomination; anyone who wants to check, feel free. HLHJ (talk) 02:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC) [reply ]

• Adjusting ALT5 to remove italics for "two" link; they are not allowed for emphasis in hooks. (Also, "lawschools" → "law schools".) BlueMoonset (talk) 02:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC) [reply ]

• @Buidhe: this nomination lacks a full review. @HLHJ: frankly, ALT5 is boring; it may have to do with the subject but it is not a hook. ALT3 and ALT4 have broader appeal. Yoninah (talk) 12:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC) [reply ]

The problem with ALT3 and ALT4 is that, while true, the hook facts (that it's not in the Commonwealth or the CIS) is not in the article, and hook facts per DYK rules are required to be in the article. Unless an IAR exemption is granted, or maybe unless ALT3/ALT4 run as April Fools hooks, then I don't think ALT3 or ALT4 are suitable at this time. Narutolovehinata5 ^{t c csd new} 00:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC) [reply ]

Yoninah, I found ALT5 to be quite interesting: my initial reaction was "why the hell does a university have two law schools?", and I clicked on the link to find out why. In comparison, ALT3 and ALT4 strike me as stretching to be clever, and not getting there. However, your point is well taken: this nomination needs a full review, and perhaps that reviewer will have thoughts on which hooks are worth pursuing. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC) [reply ]

I'd be delighted if anyone could succeed in being clever here. I'm sure there are more interesting facts about the lawschool than are present in that article, too. Two lawschools may seem less odd to people in the United States, where law schools sort of boomed, and have, last I heard, vastly overshot the capacity of even the US to employ lawyers... HLHJ (talk) 05:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC) [reply ]

• Full review still needed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
• The article is now long enough, adequately sourced, and was adequately sourced. The nominator (who has been inactive since December 10th) has no prior DYK credits so no QPQ is required, but no close paraphrasing was found. As I had proposed ALT1 above, I cannot give a tick here and will leave that to another editor, but among the other options, ALT2 and ALT5 are possible but not exactly spectacular and don't really sound that interesting. As I mentioned before, as ALT3/ALT4's hook facts are not in the article, they are unsuitable and I have struck them. Narutolovehinata5 ^{t c csd new} 03:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC) [reply ]

• ALT2 and ALT5 are approved as being interesting, properly cited and mentioned in the article. Both ALT1 and ALT1a are not interesting and have been struck. Flibirigit (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC) [reply ]