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 Allen3talk 14:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
New enough and long enough. Well-sourced from reliable sources throughout and no sign of copyvio or bias. QPQ done. However, there is the problem with reference 4, that it is saying something not supported by the source. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
new enough, long enough, inline citations and refs checks, interesting and factual hook. Good 2 go.BabbaQ (talk) 12:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I went to promote this but I couldnt see where in the ref (in the lede) that it says you cannot use the Apple pencil with other makes (obvious but not stated) or models. Sorry if I missed it. Victuallers (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Adding icon to reflect issue above that prevents promotion. Fix needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Is it me? I still couldnt see where in the article/ref that it says you cannot use the Apple pencil with other makes (obvious but not stated) or models. Sorry if I missed it. Victuallers (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
The "exclusively" claim was removed by sst with this edit. I have therefore struck the original hook, which was predicated on that word; a new hook will have to be provided that both appears in the article and has a reliable source. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
ALT1: ... that the Apple Pencil features pressure sensitivity and angle detection? sst✈ 01:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Almost there I think! The source (a patent) immediately after the key sentence only verified the 'angle detection' so I've taken it upon myself to place the The Verge article there too, to cite the 'pressure sensitivity'. Howver, I'm a bit concerned why there's a lengthy section in the article about "Steve Jobs' opposition to styluses" - is this padding to reach the minimum 1500 characters, or is this Apple's first stylus device, thereby making the section relevant? Something needs to be added to explain why this section is necessary, otherwise I would personally consider it off-topic. If that can be clarified in the article, the DYK would be good to go. Sionk (talk) 12:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Sionk, the article is 3017 prose characters excluding the blockquotes, and the stylus section comes to 866 prose characters, so it would be 2151 prose characters should the entire stylus section goes away, more than long enough to qualify. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Requesting new reviewer as previous reviewers have not completed a review. sst✈discuss 14:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment Review under way. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Review Good to go! New article, timely nominated. Meets core policies and guidelines, and in particular: is neutral; cites sources with inline citations; is free of close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations and plagiarism. DYK nomination was timely and article is easily long enough. Every paragraph is now cited (the "citation needed" tag has been satisfied). No copyright violations or too close paraphrasing. Earwig's copy violation detector: Apple Pencil report gives it a clean bill. ALT 1 is hooky enough, I think, and relates directly to the essence of the article. It is interesting, decently neutral, and appropriately cited. QPQ done. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
New enough and long enough. Well-sourced from reliable sources throughout and no sign of copyvio or bias. QPQ done. However, there is the problem with reference 4, that it is saying something not supported by the source. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
new enough, long enough, inline citations and refs checks, interesting and factual hook. Good 2 go.BabbaQ (talk) 12:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Requesting new reviewer as previous reviewers have not completed a review. sst✈discuss 14:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- n/a
Passes DYK checklist.