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 Sven Manguard Wha? 06:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• ... that Senator F. James Sensenbrenner, sponsor of the rival USA Freedom Act, said the FISA Improvements Act would "allow unrestrained spying on the American people"?

• Comment: Request hook be held for February 11 Special Day "The Day We Fight Back"
• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Abu'l-Qasim al-Husayn ibn Ali al-Maghribi, Mufarrij ibn Daghfal ibn al-Jarrah

Created by HectorMoffet (talk), Wnt (talk). Nominated by Wnt (talk) at 23:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC).

• . New enough, long enough, well referenced, passes the usual checks. Good for February 11. Resolute 01:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• This article suffers from the same concerns as elaborated at Template:Did you know nominations/USA Freedom Act et talk:USA Freedom Act. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• The concerns you raise there are a) a wrong interpretation of NOTNEWS, which does not prohibit coverage of recent events (and in reality, surveillance is one of the main political issues of our time, not just with plenty of highly notable news sources about the rival bills now, but with the certainty that this will remain a historic decision for many years to come), and b) neutrality, which I tried from the beginning to ensure by making sure to go through Feinstein's statement and cover the points she made before I ever nominated it. The balance of news coverage in the U.S. is negative about these spying programs (which are at best of controversial legality at present), so if there is a moderate preponderance of criticism overall, that is not "UNDUE". Wnt (talk) 15:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• Although surveillance is one of the most important political issues of our time, quite a few individual articles among these nominations that I feel don't quite pass our various policies, in particular WP:GNG, WP:NOT and WP:PS. Note that these are not "traditional" articles about legislation, but are political articles, many of which were hastily created in the hope that they could reach the MP on 11 Feb.

  Some of these articles have real question marks over their notability. Without talking about the political merits of the FISA Improvement Act (which is likely to have the strongest claim to notability and has a good chance of passing because it's backed by the executive branch), I feel there is good potential for encyclopaedic notability if these (USA Freedom Act, FISA Improvements Act, Klayman v. Obama, ACLU v. Clapper, Arizona Fourth Amendment Protection Act, Amash-Conyers Amendment) could be merged into an umbrella topic about legal moves against surveillance in the US. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 17:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• That's absurd. We couldn't even define what bills should be under such an umbrella - not considering how many bills have reporting or surveillance implications. The way we make articles about bills and acts is real simple: one bill, one article. (Well, technically, there are usually several bills in each of two congressional chambers, but in lay language sources, they're one "bill") That should not change. Wikipedia does have the resources to hold the entire U.S. congressional calendar, every bill introduced in every year, and cover them; it doesn't mostly because they're largely boring and many many not even be reported enough to meet GNG, which is all the more reason to have those that are as articles. Wnt (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

RSes covering this bill include: The Guardian, MSNBC, Reuters, Time and many many others. Notability is met. --HectorMoffet (talk) 04:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Reviewer needed to check issues raised above, and on material added since the original review. As the original reviewer did not mention neutrality, an important DYK criterion, the new review should certainly look at that issue. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • - in regards to notability, I believe the standard is met. In regards to neutrality, I am concerned that all of the opinions listed are in opposition to the bill. It passed comittee, so clearly there must be people supporting it other than Feinstein. Failing to include even one voice in support creates an imbalance that needs fixed. If most opinions are against, it is fair to have a large proportation of quoted parties against, but it is not fair to have zero supporting opinions expressed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

That was a fair complaint. I managed to locate the original report and provided some more quotes. Wnt (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

All looks good now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)