Template:Did you know nominations/Mass surveillance in North Korea
- 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: rejected by -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 15:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Mass surveillance in North Korea
[edit]- ... that North Korea's surveillance network includes of informants who monitor their fellow citizens for indications of subversive behavior?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/The Elstree Project
- Comment: Please hold for potential use on Feb 11, alt text much appreciated
Nominated by HectorMoffet (talk) at 21:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC).
- Comment: This won't appear on DYK on 11 February, consensus on WT:DYK was to not take part in any of the surveillance proposals as it would be a NPOV violation. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- The nominator now has "Semi-retired" on his user page and talk pages. The review used as QPQ was only three words: "Appropriate link, interesting". So it does not qualify as QPQ, but the nominator did not have enough DYKs to need a QPQ anyway. I reviewed The Elsrtee Project. — Maile (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Given recent issues with close paraphrasing and copyvio from this author—see WT:DYK#ACLU v. Clapper—this nomination should not be approved without a thorough check in these areas. Potential reviewers please take note. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Dull hook. What else would a surveillance network do? Or be? Daniel Case (talk) 07:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
The content issues remain unaddressed, and are coupled with the unresolved block. The editor appears unlikely to return in the near future,[1][2] and other editors have not come forward in more than a week to address issues. It therefore seems to me that this nomination will not be promoted. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 15:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
