The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
DYK toolbox |
---|
Created by HLHJ (talk). Self-nominated at 23:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy compliance:
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
Overall: The hook itself is interesting enough that it made me want to click on it to review it, so I think it should be okay; the alternatives I could concieve of were some statements about censorship but none of them felt as "hooky" as this one. The only concern I have with the article is that "it can relay any sort of content, some of its uses are illegal in any country."
and "In countries where Tor itself is illegal, knowingly operating a Snowflake node may be illegal."
are unsourced, and I know per WP:NOLEGAL it's not considered legal advice and it's entirely possible I'm just being a stickler here, but if an article is going to advise on the potential illegality of a thing, I think that's definitely the kind of statement that should be sourced. Would it be possible to add sources for that, or adjust or remove those statements? As far as I can tell, that's the only thing that would be cause for the essay-like template on the article. As far as I am aware that tag isn't a barrier to proceeding, as Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide#Review the article(s) says that templates listed at Wikipedia:Template index/Disputes are the ones that would cause an issue, and essay-like doesn't appear to be listed there. - Aoidh (talk) 04:15, 1 November 2022 (UTC)