Template:Did you know nominations/United States v. Spy Factory, Inc.
- 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 Miyagawa (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
United States v. Spy Factory, Inc.[edit]
... that it's possible to be sued for owning a surveillance store chain?
Created/expanded by Tristan Lall (talk). Nominated by Qqz (talk) at 05:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- *ALT 1
that it's possible to be sued for selling surveillance equipment, as in the case of United States v. Spy Factory, Inc.?- *ALT 2 that it's possible to be prosecuted for selling surveillance equipment, as in the case of United States v. Spy Factory, Inc.?
New enough and long enough, has inline citations, However, each paragraph in the body on the text needs to have a citation. You do not have to have citations in the lead (although you can) but the lead must summarize the article, so you might want to restructure the article. Also, the hook needs to have a citation (that might be a case for putting a citation in the lead) and the way your hook is written I do not think that that can be done since they weren't really sued for "owning" the store, but for what they were selling. I have suggested an alternative.- Actually, now that I think about it, it is a criminal case, not a civil suit so it was a prosecution not a suit. It does not seem remarkable that one would be prosecuted for breaking the law, so I am not sure that the hook is even interested.-Ishtar456 (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- I've just added some more to the article. The original idea was to break it up in sections (like it is now); there just wasn't enough content in the original version to do so. Every paragraph has one or more inline citations, except for one which is entirely a contextual reference to the law being described. I also think I can suggest a better hook:
- ALT 3 ... that until its conviction for trafficking in wiretapping equipment, the Spy Factory was the largest chain of spy shops in the United States?
- Tristan Lall (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- I've just added some more to the article. The original idea was to break it up in sections (like it is now); there just wasn't enough content in the original version to do so. Every paragraph has one or more inline citations, except for one which is entirely a contextual reference to the law being described. I also think I can suggest a better hook:
- Also, since it's a criminal case, not a civil case, I struck out the hook phrases dealing with being sued, to avoid confusion. Tristan Lall (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
