A fact from French brig Euryale (1863) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 January 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that a U.S. Supreme Court case involving the French ship Euryale considered whether Napoleon III, as a foreign emperor, could bring cases in American courts?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
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 articles
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.
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.
Article is new enough and long enough. I am a little concerned about how #4 is used, seems like we are analyzing a primary source (court ruling) there, even if it seems correct. I don't have access to the other sources. No copyvio or plagiarism that I can see. Each hook seems roughly equal to me, the third is perhaps the most interesting. Seems neutral and moderately interesting. QPQ is done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus, thanks for the review. I've tightened the wording of the article a little to make it clear that the statements are taken from the court records. I think we are OK to use the proceedings of the court this way as long as it is clearly attributed. I am happy to get other opinions on this - Dumelow (talk) 15:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
Article is new enough and long enough. I am a little concerned about how #4 is used, seems like we are analyzing a primary source (court ruling) there, even if it seems correct. I don't have access to the other sources. No copyvio or plagiarism that I can see. Each hook seems roughly equal to me, the third is perhaps the most interesting. Seems neutral and moderately interesting. QPQ is done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)