Template:Did you know nominations/Amplify Tablet

Amplify Tablet

 * ... that Guilford County Schools was the first school board to deploy ... but then recall ... the Amplify Tablet?
 * Reviewed: Dedham Public Schools

Created by ViperSnake151 (talk). Self nominated at 04:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg New enough, long enough and seems neutral to me. Hook is interesting and succinct, but that the school board was the first to pull the tablet isn't explicitly mentioned in the text or cited. In my opinion, this is probably an unproblematic synthesis; others might not agree. Also, it would be nice to get a second set of eyes; I'm not 100% sure of myself reviewing a product's article.  Oreo Priest  talk 02:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The statement is really intended to be "they were to first to deploy it, but then they pulled it" ViperSnake151  Talk  04:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could rephrase it then?  Oreo Priest  talk 16:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe ALT1: ... that the Guilford County Schools were the first school district to deploy the Amplify Tablet which they subsequently recalled? Bob Amnertiopsis ∴ChatMe! 05:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That could work. Or even ALT2: ... that the Guilford County Schools were the first school district to deploy the Amplify Tablet but recalled it after only a month? (If there's any concern about citation, the 'one month' figure both comes from the date of the recall and from this source in the article).  Oreo Priest  talk 03:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Article is new enough, long enough, well-referenced. The page creator did a good job avoiding close paraphrasing. QPQ done. I have 2 questions: (1) Two sources say it's a 10-inch screen, while the article says it's a 10.1 inch screen. (2) Regarding the hook, I don't see the "one month" figure in the sources, nor do I find the "first school to recall it" in a source. If you could provide a citation for the latter fact, we could run with the first hook, slightly tweaked as follows:
 * ALT3: ... that Guilford County Schools was the first school board to deploy ...and then recall ...the Amplify Tablet? Yoninah (talk) 01:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much what I was aiming for. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg ALT 3 works for me. Good to go IMO.  Oreo Priest  talk 04:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg The hook was pulled from the prep-area, as Yoninah posted at WT:DYK that their concerns hadn't been adressed. Mentoz86 (talk) 14:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding ALT2, "a month" is in the source I linked, which is in the article. And if ALT1 and ALT3 are still considered uncited, then we can simply rephrase it as:
 * ALT4: ... that Guilford County Schools was the first school board to deploy the Amplify Tablet but recalled it shortly after?  Oreo Priest  talk 13:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The word "month" is nowhere in the article; in fact, there is nothing that says when the 2013–14 school year begins in Guilford County. It isn't enough that a fact is in the source, it needs to be in the article and cited. At the moment, even ALT4's "shortly after" is uncited. The 10.1 inch vs. 10 inch issue still needs to be addressed: the cited source for the paragraph disagrees with the article. While that may have been rounding on the part of the article's writer, a source with 10.1 is required to use 10.1; otherwise, this is WP:OR and not allowed. ViperSnake151 needs to address both of these issues before the nomination can proceed. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * On the claim it was the "first", see the "No Child Left Untableted" source, which says "Amplify has tested preliminary versions of its tablets and curriculum in a dozen small pilot programs, but Guilford County is its first paying customer. " ViperSnake151  Talk  16:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * At issue was the claim that it was "first" to recall.  Oreo Priest  talk 16:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svgWithdrawn: Its editorial relevance has passed, plus there are no clear and credible claims in the article for any of the proposed leads. Just end it now. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)