Template:Did you know nominations/Brian Kim

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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Brian Kim

(

)

... that when Brian Kim spoke as a guest expert on CNBC about the legality of dark pools, he was at the same time running an illegal Ponzi scheme?

Reviewed: Japanese people who conserve Article 9

Created by Epeefleche (talk). Self nominated at 18:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC).

Article is sufficiently new, long enough, contains inline citations throughout, and contains no obvious plagiarism. Hook is sufficiently short, interesting, and accurate according to the sources, but it fails the third criterion: "neutral and does not focus unduly on negative aspects of living people". I would suggest a more neutrally worded hook. ~~Looks like the nominator has had three DYKs, so QPQ not an issue.~~ My bad, I just looked at Epeefleche's talk page. Epeefleche still needs to review another nomination under QPQ. —Swpb^talk 01:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. 2 thoughts. One, while I get swpb's concern, can someone else please provide a second opinion as to whether this is barred by the "unduly" criterion (we are allowed hooks that are neutral, or that focus on negative, but not unduly negative, aspects)? I think the focus of the hook is on the ironical contrast, and the part added in as balance (CNN commentator reference) is positive, and ironical/humorous in these circumstances. Also, I'm assuming I still have a QPQ responsibility -- I have dozens of DYKs. Epeefleche (talk) 03:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I endorse your request for a second opinion. As a new DYK reviewer, I'm hemming conservatively to the rules, but I wouldn't personally have a problem with the DYK as submitted. —Swpb^talk 15:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The hook looks neutrally worded to me, given that Kim pleaded guilty, was convicted, and four credible sources document the timeline of the Ponzi scheme overlapping his appearances on CNBC. One source even speculates that his Ponzi scheme success may have been "fueled by that notoriety," which could be over the neutrality line if included in the hook, but it wasn't. The hook doesn't overstate his crimes; rather, it ironically juxtaposes his Ponzi scheme activities with his appearance as a financial expert on a well-regarded cable business show. I'm also a new reviewer, but after the QPQ, looks GTG to me. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've now performed the QPQ, as reflected above. Epeefleche (talk) 21:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks good to go. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 23:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)