Template:Did you know nominations/Amash-Conyers Amendment

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: rejected by Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Amash-Conyers Amendment

(

)

~~... that the Amash-Conyers Amendment, which sought to end bulk data collection, was defeated by a vote of 217 to 205?~~
ALT1: ... that the Amash-Conyers Amendment, opposing NSA data collection, was narrowly defeated in a vote that crossed party lines?

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Eriberto Arroyo Mío
Comment: hold for possible use on Feb 11

Created by HectorMoffet (talk). Self nominated at 08:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC).

The article is new enough, having been moved into mainspace on the day of DYK nomination. Per rule A2:"The prose portion of the article, which must be 1500 characters, excludes (in addition to categories listed in the rules) block quotes…" Due to the block quote taking up around half the article, I make the prose count just 953. This does not meet the criteria. Otherwise it is neutral and free from copyright concerns. The hook is not especially "hooky" and isn't a clear reflection of the article, lacking context. QPQ is not done, there is a comment asking for more of a review at the associated page. C 679 13:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I also had concerns about notability. Most of the content was sourced to a WP:SPS, or otherwise trivial mentions. Added to the fact that the amendment failed. I think the place for this is as a merged article about the legislative efforts to reign in the NSA – perhaps merged to USA Freedom Act or to Global surveillance disclosures (2013–present) or as a spinoff of thereto. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 17:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

@Cloudz679, article has been expanded to readable prose. Alternate hook text most welcome. Since I have never had an article at DYK, I was told there was no QPQ requirement, although I did my best to attempt a QPQ anyway. --HectorMoffet (talk) 13:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

You're right, QPQ is not required in this case. I agree with Ohconfucius though, that the topic doesn't seem to be sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article. One of thousands of failed bills. C 679 17:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The sources in the article (e.g. [1]) support notability. Of all the bills before U.S. Congress, how many are major news in the UK? For "enduring" news coverage see [2]. For discussion of its overall historical role see [3]. But above all, note that the DYK criteria above say nothing at all about evaluating notability. Wnt (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Just the hook then. C 679 19:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps ALT1 ... that the Amash-Conyers Amendment, opposing NSA data collection, was narrowly defeated in a vote that crossed party lines? [I posted this much earlier but forgot to sign -- Wnt (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)]

Prose has been expanded, ALT1 is a much better hook, so it's good to go. C 679 21:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, but there's a substantial quote reliant on a primary source, and I have tagged the article accordingly. Please see that it is rewritten based on third party reliable sources. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 10:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The nominator is currently blocked indefinitely, so any rewrite will have to be by someone else. — Maile (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomination is also still tagged as a stub, and I see three bare-URL references, which must also be fixed before the nomination is passed. From what I can see of the indefinite block, it can be reversed at any time, so long as certain conditions are met. So the nominator could be back doing work soon, or never. It depends entirely on him. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Someone else addressed the stub issue, if that is an issue (it's definitely not a stub now), and I've dealt with complaints about the primary source (adding a secondary that said the same thing) and also having a category. Wnt (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I see that the matter I raised has been dealt with satisfactorily. I have no further concerns. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 14:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

There are still referencing concerns, the statement "We urge the House to reject the Amash amendment and instead move forward with an approach that appropriately takes into account the need for a reasoned review of what tools can best secure the nation" is attributed to a Guardian article, but actually is a user comment on the said article. C 679 18:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

It was sourced to the Global Post article cited at the end of the preceding sentence. Wnt (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The quoting is still sub-standard, e.g. direct quotes are not immediately followed with inline citations, also citations used have actually quoted the specific content from elsewhere, e.g. fn5 is not the original source of the information. C 679 07:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I just tidied it up a bit and removed some things. This is utter tosh that doesn't meet notability criteria. But that's not exactly a DYK review so I shall leave the fact that I made a small contribution here. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
requesting new reviewer. C 679 10:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Silly question, what for?--Laun chba ller 19:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Could someone check for it being free of close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations and plagiarism. I have lost count of the number of different people working on this, and the number of times I have managed to find yet another issue. Thanks, C 679 18:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I've checked; while I am seeing copyvios, they are all fully annotated with "s. However, given the notability concerns raised I am tempted to send this to AfD to confirm its notability.--Laun chba ller 21:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I think this has been here long enough. The original creator has not edited for over two months and there are outstanding concerns. We need to move on. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)