Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Smart Sheriff

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 ~ RobTalk 19:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Smart Sheriff

[edit]
(
)

Created by Piotrus (talk). Self-nominated at 06:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC).

  • To avoid the problems of "unspecified Korea", "app repetition" "multiple hyphens" and "nasty advertising jargon", I present this hardly altered:
ALT1: ... that, in South Korea, introduction of Smart Sheriff, the world's first government-mandated parental monitoring app, has raised concerns over spyware and Internet privacy? Belle (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
ALT2: ... that the introduction of Smart Sheriff in South Korea, the world's first government-mandated parental monitoring app, has raised concerns over spyware and Internet privacy?
  • The article is long enough, and new enough. There is referencing throughout. QPQ done. Correct person credited. One problem is that it is non-neutral, exclusively presenting a point of view opposed to this App. The hooks themselves are neutral enough. ALT2 is probably the most suitable given above. Now about the hook. It is referenced, but the BBC reference nowhere calls this invasion of privacy. The register and Techworm do substantiate the claim of calling it spyware. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
    • @Graeme Bartlett: I have backed the privacy concern claim with 2 more refs in text. Is this satisfactory now? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes that addresses the hook support concerns. That just leave the POV issue to deal with. Currently there is only half a sentence that could be considered to be in favour of this, and a couple of paragraphs against. Surely the government or some of its supporters have something to say in support of the APP? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Second opinion request, on whether the article is neutral enough. Fuebaey (talk) 12:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Regarding POV, the article as-is appears to roughly match the sources in terms of point of view, and Googling the subject does not indicate to me that the sources are cherry-picked to support the POV. So I am fine with this hook NPOV-wise; no opinion otherwise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Commenting only on the article's tone, it's sufficiently neutral and well-sourced to support the claims of controversy. Just because something is controversial doesn't mean it's bad, only that it's sparked public reaction. I've struck the original hook and ALT1 in favor of the stronger ALT2 hook. - Dravecky (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: The hook is not grammatical. The subordinate clause relates back to "South Korea", not "Smart Sheriff". If South Korea must be included, perhaps you could write:
  • ALT3: ... that the South Korean introduction of Smart Sheriff, the world's first government-mandated parental monitoring app, has raised concerns over spyware and Internet privacy? Yoninah (talk) 01:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • For Alt3 This checks out and the POV issues are dealt with above. Length of article and hook are fine and no one has spotted any close paraphrasing. There is no image. No reason to hold this any longer IMO Victuallers (talk) 16:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Smart_Sheriff&oldid=1017905800"