Template:Did you know nominations/2011 Hot Lotto fraud scandal
- The following 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 BenLinus1214talk 02:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
2011 Hot Lotto fraud scandal
[edit]... that the information security director of the U.S. Multi-State Lottery Association was accused of hacking its systems to rig and win a US$16.5 million drawing, and then attempting to anonymously claim the prize by means of a shell company in Belize?
- ALT1:... that a fraud scandal involving the U.S. lottery game Hot Lotto is linked to an employee of the association which organizes the game?
ALT2: ... that the information security director of the U.S. Multi-State Lottery Association was accused of hacking its systems to manipulate and win a drawing?- Reviewed: Abortion in Northern Cyprus
Created by ViperSnake151 (talk). Self-nominated at 16:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC).
I have my doubts whether this article qualifies for DYK. It seems to have been split out from the article Hot Lotto on 16th April, at which time it was 3358 B in length. It is now 5856 B, so not even double its original size. Have I missed something here? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Cwmhiraeth, I think the key here is how much of the material "split" from the original article was ultimately used. Doing a diff of the article as it was to begin with and as it was after the April edits were done shows extensive changes, but whether it's enough to be a 5x expansion of what still remains from the original article is something I don't have time to check... assuming I'm right about this. Crisco 1492, does this jibe with your understanding of the reuse rules? BlueMoonset (talk) 01:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- Last I checked, if the text was paraphrased, it hasn't been considered an issue. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- This article is new enough and I am advised that its length and origin is acceptable. Either hook could be used as both have inline citations. I did not identify any close paraphrasing or other copyright issues. However I am unsure about the article's neutrality. It outlines the facts that the prosecution is going to rely on. However, the defence will presumably dispute these and at the moment there are no details of any defence submissions. In the UK, this article and the discussion of the allegations in the press would not be allowed, because after a suspect is charged, no further public discussion is permitted because it might influence a jury verdict and prejudice a case. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- I think that ALT1 is still BLP compliant; to the best of my knowledge, it is in-line with the current DYK guidelines. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
OK. Ready to go then with ALT1 then. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
