- 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 Yoninah (talk) 11:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
sourcing and other issues unaddressed
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Cable Haunt
... that Cable Haunt is a critical vulnerability found in cable modems across the world? Source: https://cablehaunt.com/- ALT1:... that the critical vulnerability codenamed Cable Haunt impacted around 200 million cable modems in Europe alone? Source: https://www.zdnet.com/article/hundreds-of-millions-of-cable-modems-are-vulnerable-to-new-cable-haunt-vulnerability/
Created by Tschrock (talk). Nominated by The4lines (talk) at 15:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC).
- General eligibility:
- New enough:
- n - Long enough:
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
QPQ: 
- Not done
Overall: 
I see this article was created in January, marginally expanded this month (but only really to add additional further reading links) and nominated for dyk by an uninvolved editor. I observe that the actual website for this is being used as the citation, or for alt0 at least. I don't feel the expansion this month is close to the advised expansion for dyk and is 3 months old ("new" is up to 7 days), while it hasn't gone through a GA process recently to qualify. Another opinion would be welcomed. Bungle (talk • contribs) 13:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Bungle: Hello, thanks for the review. I thought the 7 days started when the article was moved to main space. But I stand corrected. And as stated above a another opinion would be welcome. The4lines (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)The4lines
- @The4lines: You may well be right, if it has been in mainspace for 10 days only then it probably would count as a "new" article. I am sure someone else will clear this up, as that was my only real concern (but may turn out not to be!) You may also need to consider reviewing a DYK submission too. Bungle (talk • contribs) 15:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
(This review was requested on my talk page, which I'm not sure why, but see no reason not to.) The sourcing for ALT0, as well as in the article, is not adequate. Cablehaunt.com appears to be a promotional website. It would be far better to take the Tom's Guide article and use it as a source in the article, and have the cablehaunt website as an external link. But it does appear to be new enough, since it was only approved out of draft a few days before being nominated, thus "new" into mainspace within the 7 day time-limit. It is just barely large enough. I would suggest coming up with another ALT if possible, perhaps using the Tom's Guide article. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- @CaptainEek: Ok How about this?
ALT1:...Hundreds of millions of cable modems around the world may be vulnerable to a software flaw named "Cable Haunt"?Source:https://www.tomsguide.com/news/cable-haunt-modem-flaw
Thanks for the article cleanup and the extra alt. But the issue now is that the article is less than 1500 characters, our minimum size. However it was larger than that when nominated. I'm not quite sure how to handle that, so I'm going to leave this review to someone with a bit more experience in that realm. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- @CaptainEek: I think I have fixed the size problem its says 1533 or something along those lines. The4lines (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)The4lines
Hi, I was asked on my talk page to do a review here. The article is new enough and barely long enough (the list doesn't count in the character count). However, it seems like WP:NOTMANUAL and has no balance; it just seems to be warning users about modems in a one-sided presentation. It is also based on non-reliable sources which seem to mirror one another (footnotes 3, 4, 5). Hasn't any reputable newspaper or magazine written about this? No QPQ needed for nominator with less than 5 DYK credits. Yoninah (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: What do you suggest to fix? The4lines |||| (You Asked?) (You Want To Know?) 23:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)The4lines
- @The4lines: I suggest you find reliable sources and rewrite this in a balanced way. There are always two sides to every story. Yoninah (talk) 00:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- Yoninah, I'm surprised to see ZDNet (footnote 4) referring to as a non-reliable source: it's part of CBS Interactive, and can trace back to being the online presence of stalwarts in the computer magazine field, like PC Magazine. I would have trusted them to know their stuff; are they no longer reputable? The4lines, you haven't done any editing to the article since Yoninah's comment on April 28. If you intend to pursue this nomination, you need to start work on revising the article very soon. Thanks to you both. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
As far as I can see, the only edit made by The4lines was removing an external link to The Cable Haunt website; there is no sign of a balanced rewrite as requested by Yoninah nearly four weeks ago. The4lines, as this was not your article to begin with, you may not wish to do all that, which is understandable. (If that's the case, by all means let us know.) However, if this nomination is to remain viable, there needs to be significant progress before the end of May. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Marking for closure; there have been no edits in the past week and no response from the nominator, and the issues remain unaddressed. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
