Template:Did you know nominations/FBI v. Apple

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Jolly Ω Janner 08:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

FBI v. Apple[edit]

(
)
  • Comment: Hook could be better.

Created by ArnoldReinhold (talk). Nominated by BlueStove (talk) at 21:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC).

  • DYK checklist template
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation

QPQ: Unknown
Overall: Core criteria checked per template. Last para in article needs a cite to replace that "cite needed". Hook is way too long, at 306 characters; I did not even check it for accuracy, as it obviously needs a rewrite. QPQ is excused, as nominator has not yet submitted five DYKs. Earwig copyvio score of 48.5% is explained by the lengthy block quote in the text; that means no editorial copyvio. This article is of civic importance. Its minor problems can be easily solved. A tip of the hat to editor ArnoldReinhold and his supporting cast for rapid assembly of a complex set of facts on an ongoing event. Let's hope we can push this as a DYK while it is still of current interest.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment I fixed the citation needed tag. Let me know if there is anything else I can do to help. Thanks for the kind words, but for the record, I copied a big chunk of this article from a section on the case in the article 2015 San Bernardino attack, after a discussion on that article's talk page, so the team there deserves much of the credit.--agr (talk) 00:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The hook only appears to be 200 characters. Can you check the hook length again?BlueStove (talk) 14:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
To the reader's eye, the hook is only 192 characters if the initial 'that' is not included. However, in edit view, it is 306 characters. It is my understanding that your present hook would take up two DYK slots instead of one. That's why the DYK requirement for 200 characters, as that is the maximum that can fit in a single DYK slot. Please trim the hook, or supply another.
Your speed in producing the article is still noteworthy, regardless of your start. Thanks for the article.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

There have been new developments that are discussed in the article which might suggest a different hook, maybe "that a federal judge in Brooklyn has ruled that the 1789 All Writs Act cannot be used to compel Apple to unlock a drug dealer’s iPhone." (137 characters, not counting markup)--agr (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

That new hook will work. It is well cited, short enough, and more interesting than your present hook. If you will offer that hook as ALT1, complete with question mark at the end, I will approve it. Otherwise, if I place it as ALT1, someone else will have to review it. So say the rules.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
I did so, I hope correctly. I added "in the FBI v. Apple controversy," to have a link to the article. That brings it to 168 characters without markup. Let me know if that is a problem.--agr (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
The proposed ALT1 above is an acceptable length and cited; it is good to go. However, trimming it will not only reduce its length, but increase its mystery, and thus its reader appeal. You don't want to explain everything in a hook. Forget Brooklyn; it's irrelevant. And Apple is mentioned in the suit name. So you might try, "... that a federal judge has ruled in FBI v. Apple that the 1789 All Writs Act cannot compel unlocking a drug dealer’s iPhone." Only 135 characters in edit view, and it makes the reader wonder about the means of compulsion.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Mystery is good, but I don't want to mislead. It's the case in California that has gotten the most attention. The case in Brooklyn is a parallel case that may serve as precedent, but it differs from the main case, so I think the word Brooklyn is important, lest readers think the main case is over. The overall story is still in the headlines, so we should get enough attention.--agr (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
That's a fair call. Overlength hook struck. This article GTG with approved hook.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Alternate hook is fine. I've wiki-linked the relevant text.BlueStove (talk) 01:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I'd lose the link to compel; that article is substandard. Maybe link iPhone.--agr (talk) 13:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
The compel article is lousy, but it's still better than nothing for the layperson.BlueStove (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I changed ALT1 to reflect the new article title "FBI–Apple encryption dispute". I also edited the compel article to make it a little less embarrassing.--agr (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/FBI_v._Apple&oldid=817590686"