Template:Did you know nominations/Mass surveillance in East Germany
- 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 Ohc ¡digame! 01:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Mass surveillance in East Germany
edit- ... that mass surveillance in East Germany was so extensive that there was one informer per every 6.5 citizens?
- Reviewed: 1993 Klamath Falls earthquake
- Comment: HOLD. This article must be held until Feb 11 if a consensus emerges for a Feb 11 special day. If a special day does not emerge, this nomination may be run at any nonspecific day or skipped entirely.
Created by HectorMoffet (talk). Self nominated at 18:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC).
Reviewed against the criteria:
- The article was nominated two days after creation and contains "4277 characters (680 words) of readable prose size"
- The article is neutral, most citations are inline, with at least one citation for most pargraphs, and
- → Will assume good faith on the two offline sources
- → The paragraphs missing citations are the two-sentence first paragraph in the "Background" section and the two one-sentence paragraphs in the "Reunification and aftermath" section but both could be easily resolved by merging into neighbouring paragraphs
- The article appears to be free of copyright issues, with three direct quotations followed by relevant citations
- The hook is 101 characters, formatted properly and is interesting, accurate (with 5 citations in the article) and neutral
- Nominator has met QPQ reviewing requirement although it may not have been necessary because the nominator appears to have no DYK credits
- Generally well written article, needs a couple of tweaks for DYK purposes and maybe formatting of citations, but that isn't immediately necessary.
- This nomination was located under the wrong date, i.e. should have been under January 28 (the date of creation), not January 30 (the date of nomination) but it is a minor issue.
As for holding for a specific date, wouldn't the Stasi foundation date of 8 February be significant?
- There is an image used in the article that could be used with this nomination because it is free and shows up well at small size →
- -- Green Giant (talk)
Restoring this to the noms page after User:HectorMoffet removed it from the prep area because he wants it to run on February 11 in connection with "Surveillance Awareness Day." He started a discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Orlady's Prejudgment of consensus and scheduling against procedure. --Orlady (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- Either this DYK is approved or it isn't. If the former, either it's directly promoted to the prep area or transferred to an appropriate holding area. If it isn't approved, please tell us what further needs to be done. There are no grounds for allowing it to languish and then join the queue as if by default on 11 February. Anyhoo, the article's subject has little in common with the modern day "explosions" caused by Ed Snowden's "cluster bombs". Although someone has sought to make it appear "relevant" by adding a final section, which I regard as a coatrack:
What gives? -- Ohc ¡digame! 02:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)In the wake of the 2013 global surveillance disclosures, a former stasi officer commented that the NSA capabilities "would have been a dream come true" for the Stasi.[18][19] German Chancellor Angela Merkel, after it was revealed that the US government was tapping her cell phone, compared the NSA with the Stasi.[20]
I would support the suggestion of User:Green Giant that 8 February is more directly relevant and put it in for that day. I will also remove the coatrack before it appears on the MP.-- Ohc ¡digame! 02:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- I don't intend to touch this hook again, but I have opinions about the idea of running it on February 8th as the Stasi founding date. When I promoted this to the prep area (the action which resulted in that thread on Jimbo's page, as well as some disruption here at DYK), my edit summary said "not inclined to put this in a special occasion slot, since few of us care to celebrate the anniversary of the Stasi's founding." I stand by that position. Special occasion hooks are a nuisance to manage, so we reserve them for real special occasions (holidays, anniversaries that people care about, etc.) -- not random whims. I can't see the anniversary of the Stasi's founding being a special occasion. It's not a date that many people would be aware of -- and it is something that anybody truly wants to honor. Furthermore, I expect that Hector Moffet would be even more irate about running the hook for that date than he was when it was going to run on February 6. --Orlady (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- Withdrawing my comment above; Coatrack has now been removed, and this article is ready for promotion per Orlady's original review. -- Ohc ¡digame! 06:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- I did not approve this hook. User:Green Giant was the reviewer. The insertion of an image made it hard to see that. My only role in this was promoting it to the prep area after reading Green Giant's review. I am moving their sig into a more visible position and repositioning my "restoring to the noms page" comment to make things clearer. As stated, I will not touch this hook again. --Orlady (talk) 14:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you Orlady. Sorry if it wasn't clear before, but I reviewed the nomination and suggested the image. The AGF tick was mean't to signify that there were sources taken on good faith. I've struck out the suggestion of Feb 8 because Orlady is right to say that reserving should really be for special occasions. Green Giant (talk) 22:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- I did not approve this hook. User:Green Giant was the reviewer. The insertion of an image made it hard to see that. My only role in this was promoting it to the prep area after reading Green Giant's review. I am moving their sig into a more visible position and repositioning my "restoring to the noms page" comment to make things clearer. As stated, I will not touch this hook again. --Orlady (talk) 14:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- I don't intend to touch this hook again, but I have opinions about the idea of running it on February 8th as the Stasi founding date. When I promoted this to the prep area (the action which resulted in that thread on Jimbo's page, as well as some disruption here at DYK), my edit summary said "not inclined to put this in a special occasion slot, since few of us care to celebrate the anniversary of the Stasi's founding." I stand by that position. Special occasion hooks are a nuisance to manage, so we reserve them for real special occasions (holidays, anniversaries that people care about, etc.) -- not random whims. I can't see the anniversary of the Stasi's founding being a special occasion. It's not a date that many people would be aware of -- and it is something that anybody truly wants to honor. Furthermore, I expect that Hector Moffet would be even more irate about running the hook for that date than he was when it was going to run on February 6. --Orlady (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)