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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• ... that Stop Watching Us, a protest against mass surveillance, was supported by Daniel Ellsberg, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Lawrence Lessig, Wil Wheaton, and others?

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Statue of Queen Victoria, St Helens
• Comment: Please hold for possible usage on Feb 11; Improvements to hook text would be most welcome.

Created by HectorMoffet (talk). Self nominated at 14:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC).

• The review you did needs more details, in accordance with. DYK review instructions please begin with one of the 5 review symbols that appear at the top of the edit screen, and then indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed. Without a more complete review, it cannot count at a QPQ. — Maile (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• I've updated it. I'm quite new here, have never had a successful DYK hook make it to mainpage, so I'm trying to remain relatively neutral until I have a firm sense of DYK standards, encouraging peer review, while still fulfilling the requirements of QPQ. HectorMoffet (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see, Hector. Well, your added details make the review fine for a QPQ. However, and you probably know this, you aren't required to do a QPQ until you've had 5 DYKs on the main page. Still, it's nice of you to help out with the backlog. — Maile (talk) 12:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the right symbol for this, but I just want to point out this DYK still has not been reviewed apart from some discussion of the unneeded QPQ. Wnt (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I must regretfully fail this nomination, for only one reason: it's ineligible because it's neither new or expanded enough. There is no difference between Jan. 30 and Feb. 3, when the edit summary says that it was moved from userspace [1], and then is no real change in length between the Feb. 3 version (when this article was nominated for DYK) and Feb. 7, the last date it could've qualified [2]. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Not so fast. This was moved to mainspace (1d) on the 3rd and nominated on the 3rd so is eligible by that criterion at least. --Jakob (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps. But if you compare the draft version [3] and the Feb. 3 version [4], there is very little difference. My problem is that it hasn't been expanded enough, both when it was moved to mainspace and by the end of the five-day qualification period. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Christine, I'm afraid you are misunderstanding the DYK rules. According to the WP:DYK eligibility rules for new articles, 1d.: Articles that have been worked on exclusively in a user or user talk subpage or at articles for creation or in the Draft namespace and then moved (or in some cases pasted) to the article mainspace are considered new as of the date they reach the mainspace. The situation for this article is quite clear: it was moved from the Draft namespace to mainspace on February 3. Therefore, it is considered new as of that date. Period. Expansion is irrelevant, work in Draft is irrelevant: the sole question is whether this met the criteria for newly created articles (long enough, cited hook, and within policy) as of that day. If you aren't willing to review based on the DYK rules as they are, then someone else will have to. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, the draft mentioned above was moved, and I didn't see that until now. It would've been nice to see the draft version before it was moved, but I'm willing to AGF that it actually happened. Good to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Figureskatingfan (talk • contribs) 16:12, March 13, 2014 (UTC)

• I'm very sorry, but "good to go" is not sufficient as a review. Reviews should always explain what was checked; in addition, it was noted in WT:DYK#Older nominations needing DYK reviewers that this nomination requires a careful copyvio/close paraphrase check, and that's because others of articles nominated by HectorMoffet on this day ran into copyvio/close paraphrase problems. This is also the type of article that can run into neutrality issues. You should also mention hook and article sourcing, and signing the review is important. I hope you can give a full review here. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
• I just took a quick look at the article, and it's clear that the review did not check hook and article sourcing. The list of names in the hook is in an unsourced paragraph, and there are other paragraphs and at least one quote that are not sourced. These are major issues and will need to be fixed. Once they are, I'll be happy to call for a new reviewer; I'm striking my previously expressed hope, since a further review is not appropriate at this time. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, the review very likely did check the sourcing, because there were three sources listed at the time. [5] However, someone was very dogged about taking out material, and removed these sources including Breitbart [6], first replacing them with a primary source, then removing the primary source. He's very good at citing policy to argue what he wants, had others agree with his changes, and he already took me to ANI once during a few days I tried disagreeing with him - besides, getting into an edit war will only make the article ineligible. So I would prefer not to touch the article. I ask your indulgence in leaving the one paragraph apparently unsourced the way he left it (though the video linked from the box at right is a primary source for this), since the DYK rules don't actually require every paragraph to be sourced, and instead to consider an alternate hook from some of the remnant material:

ALT1: ... that Stop Watching Us, a protest against mass surveillance, was supported by an EFF video featuring director Oliver Stone and actor John Cusack?

Those are sourced inline. Wnt (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• Wnt, I'm not sure what review you're talking about; the only one I know of for this nomination was Christine/Figurestakingfan's on March 13, which is the one I referred to. As Christine is presumably female, and the article hasn't been edited since March 9, the "him" you refer to doesn't seem germane here. If you mean the article itself, I see that HyperionSteel and DrFleischman have been editing it, and in that case I imagine one or both of them have affected the article in the way you mention. However, if you're not willing to touch the article at all, we might as well close this nomination as unsuccessful right now. It has to inline-source unsourced paragraphs and quotes by DYK rules:

1. The second paragraph of the Open letter section (right before the blockquoted material)
2. The second paragraph of the Public Service Announcement video section, at the end of the Crabapple quote
3. The fourth paragraph of that PSA section

It's up to you. The rule of thumb for DYK is that every paragraph should be sourced, and I see no reason why this article should not do so. If the article is sourced, then it will be ready for the full DYK review it has yet to received. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've added them; we'll see what happens. Wnt (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• Full review needed of this new (at time of nomination) article, including both hooks. Reviewer should be sure to check for neutrality and close paraphrasing per DYK requirements; there were issues with the latter in other February 3 DYK nominations by this author, so extra care needs to be taken. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Long enough, moved to mainspace, QPQ unnecessary, hook sourced and short enough. I am not seeing any copyright violations. However, something should be done about reference #20 - not only has its reliability been questioned, it also seems to be dead.--Launchballer 10:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Reference 20 is live and confirms the content stated. Whether it is reliable or not does not matter because its existence confirms the statement. the rest of the statements above support that this is actually good to go. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)