Template:Did you know nominations/Arizona Fourth Amendment Protection Act
- The following discussion 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 v/r - TP 19:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Arizona Fourth Amendment Protection Act[edit]
- ... that the Arizona Fourth Amendment Protection Act seeks to prohibit the state from complying with Federal bulk data collection?
- ALT1 ... that the Arizona Fourth Amendment Protection Act would withdraw state support for collection of metadata and would ban the use of warrantless data in courts?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Tiger penis soup
- Comment: Pls hold for potential use on Feb 11
Created by HectorMoffet (talk). Self nominated at 18:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC).
(sourcing questions, date eligibility query) Prose size (text only): 1833 characters (301 words) "readable prose size", so long enough. The hook in the lead section is cited only to a legioslative page which gives the official title of the Bill "prohibited electronic data; metadata collection" but not the actual text of he bill, and not any secondary source which interprets the bill and says that this would be its effect. The more detailed content in in the body of the article has a quote saying roughly this cited to a page of the Tenth Amendment Center web site -- unfortunately this page is labeled as a 'blog", although in this case the label may be misleading and the site form a reliable source. This site is also quite partisan, being the source of the model act on which the bill is based, and a 3rd-party view of the effect of the act. I could wish for better sourcing of the hook and of the article as a whole. The article was created on 24 January 2014 and reach very nearly its current size by 25 January. Technically this is more than 5 days prior to the DYK nomination, but only by two or three days. I am not clear how strictly the 5-day limit is enforced. At 136 characters the hook is a good size. The hook is interesting and is worded in a neutral way. The article is neutral, presenting attributed opinions with citations. I see no indications of copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. QPQ done. DES (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the great feedback, I've reworded the hook text to something sourceable to reliable secondary sources. Thanks for the feedback-- I've never gotten to DYK before, so I need all the help I can get to do the job right! thx --HectorMoffet (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- @DESiegel:, I've added a link to the official bill text at the Arizona legislature. [1] I hope this satisfies any issues? Wnt (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, HectorMoffet, hook citation and article cites generally now support what they are cited for. Citation metadata (author, date, work published in, etc) would be an improvement, but that need not affect the DYK process. This looks good to go if the question of nomination vs expansion date (mentioned above) is not an issue. DES (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- Wnt, DES, the "ping" and "U" and similar notification templates or user wikilinks do not work within template space, so DES won't have gotten a notification. (The best way to ping is to leave a note or Talkback on the person's talk page.) DES, according to WP:DYK, Eligibility criteria, 1d, articles are "considered new as of the date they reach the mainspace". For this article, that would be February 1 at 18:27 UTC, when the article was moved from Hector's userspace to mainspace, as Wnt notes above. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)