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 Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
education and
education-related topics 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.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation 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.
A fact from Education for Economic Security Act appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 August 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
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.
It is a newly created article (July 23), it has a readable prose, it is not a stub, citations seem to be good, and there is a 52% violation possibility of plagiarism on the Earwig detector, but it is fine. There is also no QPQ needed as it is their first DYK. The hook is properlay formatted, it is short enough, and the source looks fine to me. Pinging: @
Thebiguglyalien: ―
Kaleeb18TalkCaleb17:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Kaleeb18: I agree with the approval, though I note for you (as this is your first QPQ) that Earwig sometimes requires good parsing of the info. The 52% figure is for the law itself and mostly consists of formulations like "fiscal years 1984 and 1985" and proper names e.g. "Asbestos Hazards Abatement Assistance Program". Most of the hits are also Congress pages, suggesting similar reasons for being flagged.
Sammi Brie (she/her •
t •
c)
18:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)reply