Template:Did you know nominations/Armatix iP1
- 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 Allen3 talk 22:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Armatix iP1
[edit]- ... that the Armatix iP1 pistol cannot access or function without iW1 Active RFID wrist watch?
Created by AntanO (talk). Self nominated at 14:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC).
Reviewed: No QPQ done, just long enough (1504 characters by my count), new enough, however there are far too many primary sources in this article. The hook is also only sourced to a primary source. Jeremy112233 (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Eligibility criteria says New nominators (those with fewer than five DYK credits) are exempt from this review. So, I don't need to review since I don't have five DYK credits. Second, the article has sources from company website, user manual and sites such as Sky News, MSNBC, The Washington Post. As per eligibility criteria, aren't they reliable source? --AntonTalk 00:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
No QPQ is necessary. The article was created on Feb 26, 2014 and has "1637 characters (0 words) "readable prose size"". Please see Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. You need to source the hook with a secondary source. While informative, the sources you mention above are primary sources, "accounts written by people who are directly involved" You need to back up that sourcing in the article with secondary sourcing.— Maile (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Maile for the feedback. I have added some sources from The Wall Street Journal and The Economist. --AntonTalk 17:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Hook is stated in the article and appropriately sourced online with secondary sources. Duplication Detector run on all sourcing shows no copyvio, no close paraphrasing. Secondary sourcing supplements primary sourcing. Every paragraph is sourced. Article is new enough and long enough. Good 2 go.— Maile (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
