Template:Did you know nominations/Jason Healey


 * 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 Yoninah (talk) 00:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Jason Healey

 * ... that Jason Healey (pictured) has been considered to be the first historian of cyber conflict?
 * Reviewed: Rhode Island International Horror Film Festival
 * Comment: Article created as a user draft on 12 April 2014; moved into mainspace on 15 April 2014.

Created by I JethroBT (talk). Self nominated at 04:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg In general, this article passes the DYK criteria of newness and length and was moved into mainspace on 15 April. The image is appropriately licensed and I found no evidence of policy issues, but my quibble is with the hook. One of the citations does not refer to the hook claim at all, and the other has a heading/caption "Interview with the world’s first cyber conflict historian". Is this sufficient to back up the hook claim? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Cwmhiraeth, I may be missing something, but the article's "first historian of cyber conflict" statement, which is used in the hook, is only sourced by one citation that I can see, the "Privacy PC" FN2, which doesn't even include the word "historian" on the referenced web page. (Also, what would make a commercial site like Privacy PC a reliable source by Wikipedia standards?) I'm also not fond of the "considered to be" phrasing. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * How about using a different hook altogether? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ALT1 ... that Forbes Magazine has identified Jason Healey (pictured) as one of the top twenty cyber policy experts to follow on Twitter?
 * Cwmhiraeth, did you check the source? It's a Forbes article that's reprinted from securitycurrent.com, and there's no suggestion that it's a top twenty list at all, just a list of cyber policy experts worth following, which includes a request for others to be brought to securitycurrent's attention so they can be added. Since this is the second hook based on the article text that doesn't accurately reflect the cited source involved, I think this article needs a more thorough going over and appropriate fixes before it can be approved for DYK. It will also need a new hook—I've struck both the original and your ALT1, given their respective problems. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did check the source. Forbes is an internationally respected company that I have heard of even in the UK, but I suppose the point you are making is that this particular item is a reprint from another source, securitycurrent, which I hadn't heard of. I also agree that inclusion of the word "top" in hook and article was inappropriate. I don't usually do reviews on living people (apart from sportsmen) and I can see that there are extra factors to be considered. I'll bow out here and leave this review to someone else. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reviews. I (mostly) agree with the above assessments and have made some adjustments to the article content.  Here is a new hook that coincides with a new source I've added from Slate magazine:  I, JethroBT  drop me a line 09:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ALT2 ... that Jason Healey (pictured) commented that the National Security Agency would be "shredded by the computer security community" based on their awareness of the Heartbleed security bug?


 * I've made a few edits—the Slate source was using material from the Bloomberg source that was already used in the article, and it's always best to go with the original material when you have it—and would like to suggest a rewording of ALT2:
 * ALT3 ... that Jason Healey (pictured) predicted that the National Security Agency would be "shredded by the computer security community" for its failure to expose the Heartbleed security bug?
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed to check the ALT hooks and also do a more rigorous check of the article per above comments, since original reviewer has bowed out. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably disappointing: I don't like any of the ALTs and propose a new one, thinking that the title tells (me) a lot:
 * ALT4 ... that historian Jason Healey (pictured), a specialist for cyber security, published A Fierce Domain, Cyber Conflict 1986 to 2012? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer still needed to check the ALT hooks and also do a more rigorous check of the article per above comments, since original reviewer has bowed out. Gerda may not like the other ALTs, but I like ALT4 quite a bit less than I like them. Let's let the new reviewer give an opinion of them all. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Full review for ALT3. New enough (for 15 April) and long enough. Hook checks out with online citation #9. QPQ OK. Citation #8 is flagged as a redirected external link, but it works OK with a video citation. The image is free, and appears in the article. One small issue: "Meritorious Service Medal" is a disambig link. As soon as you (or anybody else) can correct this, it will be good to go. --Storye book (talk) 13:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks the reviews and improvements, everyone.  The wikilink has been fixed.  For what it's worth, I also don't really care for ALT4; that he wrote a book is not a particularly interesting hook.  I, JethroBT  drop me a line 23:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Thanks, I JethroBT, all issues are now resolved. I have deleted ALTs 2 and 4, as redundant. This nom is good to go. --Storye book (talk) 07:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)