Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/FBI v. Apple"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>BlueStove (The compel article is lousy, but it's still better than nothing for the layperson.) |
imported>BlueStove m (wikilink iPhone) |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
:* | :* | ||
:* ''Comment'': Hook could be better. | :* ''Comment'': Hook could be better. | ||
| − | *ALT1: ... that in the '''[[FBI v. Apple]]''' controversy, a federal judge in [[Brooklyn]] has ruled that the 1789 [[All Writs Act]] cannot be used to [[compel]] [[Apple Inc.|Apple]] to unlock a drug dealer’s iPhone? | + | *ALT1: ... that in the '''[[FBI v. Apple]]''' controversy, a federal judge in [[Brooklyn]] has ruled that the 1789 [[All Writs Act]] cannot be used to [[compel]] [[Apple Inc.|Apple]] to unlock a drug dealer’s [[iPhone]]? |
<small>Created by [[User:ArnoldReinhold|ArnoldReinhold]] ([[User talk:ArnoldReinhold|talk]]). Nominated by [[User:BlueStove|BlueStove]] ([[User talk:BlueStove|talk]]) at 21:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC).</small> | <small>Created by [[User:ArnoldReinhold|ArnoldReinhold]] ([[User talk:ArnoldReinhold|talk]]). Nominated by [[User:BlueStove|BlueStove]] ([[User talk:BlueStove|talk]]) at 21:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC).</small> | ||
<!-- | <!-- | ||
Revision as of 18:05, 3 March 2016
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
FBI v. Apple
- ...
that in the FBI v. Apple case, the US government has filed an order to compel Apple Inc. to unlock IPhone 5C recovered from one of the shooters in a terrorist attack on San Bernardino, California?
- Comment: Hook could be better.
- ALT1: ... that in the FBI v. Apple controversy, a federal judge in Brooklyn has ruled that the 1789 All Writs Act cannot be used to compel Apple to unlock a drug dealer’s iPhone?
Created by ArnoldReinhold (talk). Nominated by BlueStove (talk) at 21:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC).
- DYK checklist template
Lua error: expandTemplate: template "y" does not exist.
- That new hook will work. It is well cited, short enough, and more interesting than your present hook. If you will offer that hook as ALT1, complete with question mark at the end, I will approve it. Otherwise, if I place it as ALT1, someone else will have to review it. So say the rules.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- I did so, I hope correctly. I added "in the FBI v. Apple controversy," to have a link to the article. That brings it to 168 characters without markup. Let me know if that is a problem.--agr (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
The proposed ALT1 above is an acceptable length and cited; it is good to go. However, trimming it will not only reduce its length, but increase its mystery, and thus its reader appeal. You don't want to explain everything in a hook. Forget Brooklyn; it's irrelevant. And Apple is mentioned in the suit name. So you might try, "... that a federal judge has ruled in FBI v. Apple that the 1789 All Writs Act cannot compel unlocking a drug dealer’s iPhone." Only 135 characters in edit view, and it makes the reader wonder about the means of compulsion.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Mystery is good, but I don't want to mislead. It's the case in California that has gotten the most attention. The case in Brooklyn is a parallel case that may serve as precedent, but it differs from the main case, so I think the word Brooklyn is important, lest readers think the main case is over. The overall story is still in the headlines, so we should get enough attention.--agr (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
That's a fair call. Overlength hook struck. This article GTG with approved hook.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- Mystery is good, but I don't want to mislead. It's the case in California that has gotten the most attention. The case in Brooklyn is a parallel case that may serve as precedent, but it differs from the main case, so I think the word Brooklyn is important, lest readers think the main case is over. The overall story is still in the headlines, so we should get enough attention.--agr (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- I did so, I hope correctly. I added "in the FBI v. Apple controversy," to have a link to the article. That brings it to 168 characters without markup. Let me know if that is a problem.--agr (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- That new hook will work. It is well cited, short enough, and more interesting than your present hook. If you will offer that hook as ALT1, complete with question mark at the end, I will approve it. Otherwise, if I place it as ALT1, someone else will have to review it. So say the rules.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)