Template:Did you know nominations/SEC v. Rajaratnam

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 Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

SEC v. Rajaratnam

(

)

... that in SEC v. Rajaratnam, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that defendants can be compelled to disclose relevant wiretapped conversations given to them in a separate trial?

Created/expanded by Noahj ucb (talk). Nominated by Shaonbarman (talk) at 21:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

There are many courts around the world, better ALT1: "... in SEC v. Rajaratnam, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that it is lawful to compel defendants to disclose the contents of relevant wiretapped conversations given to them in a separate trial?"
Having said that, length and date are ok. But there is no direct reference backing up the hook fact. The reference from leagle.com cannot be used to back this statement up, as it would be WP:OR. --Soman (talk) 13:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I changed the quote and will look for another reference supporting the fact. shaonbarman (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I added another source, which is not original research. The source is a law journal which covers this particular case. shaonbarman (talk) 06:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Nomination was removed for an unknown reason, so I am readding it. shaonbarman (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the reviewer-suggested hook is 221 characters—spaces are always included in the count—which is over the maximum of 200. You could gain back some by changing "United States" to "U.S." or even "US", but try to find some way to shorten the hook after "held that". And I feel sure that someone's going to want the hook to start "... that in" rather than "... in", which will add another five characters. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I shortened the hook as requested by changing "United States" to "US" and removing the phrase "is lawful". shaonbarman (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Main hook length is now 192 characters, which is under the maximum. Am striking out ALT1, as it was too long. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Hook is sourced and shorter than 200 characters. As per Soman "length and date are ok". But hook still isn't referenced and there are some paragraphs that aren't referenced as well. -- Esemono (talk) 13:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

If the hook is sourced, then it's referenced. Can you please clarify what information in the hook, if any, requires a reference? (Would this covered by the "Title III Provisions" subsection cites?) It is clear that at least two paragraphs still require references: the second under the "Background" section, and the "Appeal of Disclosure Order" subsection. Should be easy for the nominator to fix, if so. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe its buried in the article but I can't find where the sentence that supports the Hook statement is sourced. It's clearly in the intro but that sentence isn't sourced. Is there another sentence or sentences that have references on them? --Esemono (talk) 03:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The second citation, used only once and in the intro, seems to be the only secondary source about the decision; all references to the decision in the article body seem to be the primary source, i.e., the decision itself. Skimming that secondary source, I think it does support the hook, and sources can be placed at the end of a paragraph if they apply to the entire paragraph, rather than being put after each sentence in that paragraph. (See WP:Inline Citation#Citation density.) In this case, both the primary and secondary source appear to apply to both sentences in the intro's second paragraph. Does this make sense? If not, or if you think it might be confusing without, the same citations could always be added after the first sentence in that paragraph. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I get you on the Citation density thing but it was my understanding that it's a DYK rule that the sentence that contains the hook has to be cited. Maybe someone can correct me if I wrong. -- Esemono (talk) 07:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

What WP:DYK (the DYK rules page) says is "The "Did you know?" fact must be mentioned in the article and cited with an inline citation", and that "inline citation" section it links to says "If a word or phrase is particularly contentious, an inline citation may be added next to that word or phrase within the sentence, but it is usually sufficient to add the citation to the end of the sentence or paragraph, so long as it's clear which source supports which part of the text." There's nothing on the supplementary rules page that addresses this issue. So I guess the question is whether you feel it's clear or not that the cites at the end of the paragraph support the whole paragraph. BlueMoonset (talk) 11:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

- I think this is inline with the letter and intention of the DYK policy. If the policy needs to be changed, that can be decided, but it shouldn't impact hooks that were nominated almost 2 months ago. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
With all due respect, Johnny, while I agree with you on the hook issue interpretation, this doesn't address the violation of DYK rule D2, which has been around forever: "A rule of thumb is one inline citation per paragraph, excluding the intro, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize other cited content." As I noted above, "at least two paragraphs still require references: the second under the "Background" section, and the "Appeal of Disclosure Order" subsection." The fix should be fairly routine, especially to someone who knows the material, but it's one that needs to be made before the article passes.

Unfortunately, the nominator hasn't posted on Wikipedia since 2 April, the day that the article was restored—I did leave a note on Shaon's talk page, so even stopping by would show a message that something was up—and the author of the article hasn't posted since 20 March. Someone else is going to have to adopt the article to address this outstanding issue, or the nomination will have to be failed. Would you like to do so? BlueMoonset (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Gotcha. Those paragraphs are (mostly) sourced to the same single source as the rest of the article, and I've added appropriate inline citations for the paragraphs. Is there any other issue that's preventing this? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 14:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

No other issues that I know of, so I'm restoring your tick. Thanks. I'm glad this article can finally proceed. I'm also glad you were able to cite the journal article again, as it's a good secondary source, and probably should have been used more often. If someone ever takes this to GAN, they'll have to do so to reduce the dependency on that primary source, but this is fine for DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)