Talk:In re Neely

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Wyoming portal This article is supported by WikiProject Wyoming (assessed as Low-importance).

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lutheranism Low‑importance

	In re Neely is part of WikiProject Lutheranism, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Lutheranism on Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to Lutheran churches, Lutheran theology and worship, and biographies of notable Lutherans. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.LutheranismWikipedia:WikiProject LutheranismTemplate:WikiProject LutheranismLutheranism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from In re Neely appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 28 June 2026 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Wyoming Supreme Court censured a judge for announcing that she would not marry same-sex couples?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Did you know archive/2026/June. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/In re Neely.

Wikipedia

Did you know nomination

Latest comment: 1 month ago9 comments3 people in discussion

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. Track your hook after promotion. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Launchballer (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that the Wyoming Supreme Court censured a judge for announcing that she would not marry same-sex couples?

Source: literally every source; In re Neely, 390 P.3d 728

- Reviewed: Beer O'Clock Hill and Idris elba (wasp)

Moved to mainspace by Theleekycauldron (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 85 past nominations.

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:33, 10 June 2026 (UTC).Reply

I will do this. This is the first time that I have seen a hook using every reference in the article for its sourcing. Jon698 (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
- Oh, I just meant that the hook is so basic to the facts of the article that pretty much any source in the article would back up the hook; you don't need to look at every single one. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:54, 10 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
  - @Theleekycauldron: Don't worry, I understood that you meant any reference would source this lol. Jon698 (talk) 23:57, 10 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
    - Gotchaaa, okay – also noting that I may add Vance Day as a double-hook, but that wouldn't be for a bit. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:08, 11 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

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

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Theleekycauldron: I made some copyedits to change a few of the wikilinks and slightly alter sentences. Article was moved to mainspace on June 10, and QPQ is met. All but one of the sources are academic sources and the one non-academic source is NBC News. No major errors stopping this from becoming a DYK. Jon698 (talk) 00:24, 12 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks so much for the speedy and thorough review and copyediting! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:24, 12 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Would like this to be run during Pride (June) if possible, by the way. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:50, 12 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Error

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

“In a 3–2 decision, the Wyoming Supreme Court found that Neely had indeed committed ethics violations, holding that her comments breached her duty to avoid impartiality and the appearance of it”.

That would be “partiality”, not its opposite, in this sentence. ~2026-33878-62 (talk) 00:29, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Fixed – thanks, ~2026-33878-62! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:41, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply