Talk:Ex parte Rodriguez

Did you know nomination

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. You can locate your hook here.No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Staraction talk 06:13, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Texas Supreme Court case Ex parte Rodriguez would have invalidated the 1873 Texas gubernatorial election based on the placement of a semicolon in the Texas Constitution?

• Source: Moneyhon, Carl H. (2019) [first published 1995]. "Ex parte Rodriguez: The Semicolon Case and Its Impact on Texas Politics". Handbook of Texas. Austin, Tex.: Texas State Historical Association. Archived from the original on 2025-07-12. Retrieved 2025-08-08.

• • ALT1: ... that the Texas Supreme Court during the end of the Reconstruction era was called the "Semicolon Court" because of a case turning on the interpretation of a semicolon? Source: same as above.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Kathleen Romoli

Created by Voorts (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 14 past nominations.

voorts (talk/contributions) 21:37, 10 August 2025 (UTC).

• General eligibility:
• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Created August 10, so new enough. 13,611b, so certainly long enough. Article is mostly sourced, but the blockquote in the "Background" section is not, or at least the relevant citation is not immediately apparent. Article is sufficiently neutral and copyvio check looks fine. A few proper names and some phrases that are probably the "simplest and most obvious way[s] to present information" per WP:PLAG—so nothing significant. Hook is cited and interesting. QPQ is satisfied. Once the citation on the blockquote is clarified, should be good. Personal preference would be for the main hook over the alternate. Great work on the article! Spookyaki (talk) 23:49, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

• @Spookyaki: Thanks for the review. The reference is in-text. "Article III, section 6 of the 1869 Constitution provided that .... The provision stated, in full: [BLOCKQUOTE]." I don't think an inline citation is needed where the source itself is stated in the text. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:52, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
  • @Voorts: I think per WP:INTEXT, an in-text attribution should still be supplemented by an inline citation ("an inline citation should follow the attribution, usually at the end of the sentence or paragraph in question"), unless I'm misunderstanding (very possible!). Spookyaki (talk) 23:56, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
    • @Spookyaki: WP:INTEXT refers to providing a citation for a more generalized attribution. Thus, the example provided is an in-text reference to John Rawls, with (what I presume would be) a direct citation to the relevant edition of A Theory of Justice. By contrast, "Article III, section 6 of the 1869 Constitution" is a full citation to the source. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:01, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
      • @Voorts: Fair enough, I'll defer to your expertise on that. In that case, I think the nomination should be good. Spookyaki (talk) 02:11, 12 August 2025 (UTC)