Talk:HappyOrNot

Promo?

An IP user has added a template: "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. Please help improve it by removing promotional content and inappropriate external links, and by adding encyclopedic content written from a neutral point of view. (January 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)". So no way to ask about why this was added. I don't see e.g. any inapproriate external links here. Do you? Jjanhone (talk) 12:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

No comments in 9 months so I'll ping the editors of this article to see if some of you you have ideas about things that are too promotional or possible problems with the neutrality as there are two warning tags in this article now. So cheers Pythoncoder, Chris the speller, Hipal, WereSpielChequers, Hugo999, Sandstein, DannyS712, Cmglee, WOSlinker, Dl2000, GünniX and Back ache. I'd really appreciate to get your ideas and thoughts.Jjanhone (talk) 11:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jjanhone, I skimmed through the article and didn't find anything of particular concern especially with regards to NPOV. Non-Finnish references look reliable. Some parts go into unnecessary detail e.g. "This disappointment weighed on his mind and after deliberating over the situation for nearly a decade, he came up with the idea...", "After checking to see if the idea already existed, they went to meet with potential customers." and "They held their meetings regularly via Skype, GoToMeeting and the WhatsApp Group application. Business is conducted with the majority of time spent on discussion new opportunities instead of viewing old business and reports." Before removing those, I'd like to hear a second opinion. Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 13:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting cmɢʟee. Even if I think I've written those lines by myself I got to agree with you: too detailed for an encyclopedia. So feel free to remove them? Jjanhone (talk) 15:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The article as a whole is too much like a public relations piece rather than an encyclopedia article.

The extremely heavy reliance on Finnish-language references makes the references and their use difficult to assess.

The entire History section reads like a public relations piece, especially the 2009-2014 subsection.

The Organization section seems inappropriate for an encyclopedia article.

I'll stop there. The article needs a complete rewrite as an encyclopedia article rather than pr. --Hipal (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Hipal, I've corrected the points you mentioned, as well as the points added by cmɢʟee. Anything else? Jjanhone (talk) 17:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I couldn't remove the Finnish refs but I'll see if I can add more foreign sources soonish. But there's a discussion about the Finnish sources in the next topic, so you'll see that they are notable media even if they are in Finnish. Jjanhone (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

You have a conflict of interest here. You really shouldn't be editing the article other than for minor edits. You shouldn't declare anything is "corrected" at all. --Hipal (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

As I'm not a native English speaker, I don't notice all the nuances of words. For me "corrected" means the same than "edited" or "fixed". Paid editing is not recommended but it is still allowed.Jjanhone (talk) 06:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Paid editing can get you blocked very quickly if you're not following COI carefully. Please reassess how you work here. --Hipal (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Paid contributions tag

A paid editor made contributions to this article, and has disclosed that fact on this page, therefore the paid contributions template is a matter of fact and does not require discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

According to the policy "if you place the Paid tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article." As a paid editor I'm not allowed to remove the tag myself, but if any volunteer editor thinks that the neutral point of view of the article is ok, they are free to remove the tag as told in the Template:Paid contributions instructions: "If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning."Jjanhone (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello Hipal & Sandstein! You've edited this article earlier, do you see some problems in its content? Jjanhone (talk) 13:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Jjanhone, I don't have the time to check, sorry. Sandstein 14:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes. It still has poor and promotional sources like the last one I removed. --Hipal (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for answering Sandstein & Hipal! I checked the sources and could only find one that was not a big media, so I removed staceyoniot.com. And maybe Deloitte should be removed too? But the others should be ok. Could you DoubleGrazing or Finnusertop confirm that the Finnish media I've used are ok? Jjanhone (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Please remove all that are unreliable per discussions at WP:RSP and WP:RSN --Hipal (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I can confirm that Helsingin Sanomat and Kauppalehti are fully RS; both are newspapers of record, and about as solid as they come. Aamulehti is also RS. Talouselämä and Tekniikka & Talous I'm not familiar enough with to pass judgement, but I've no reason to consider them unreliable. (Note, reliability of sources is all I'm commenting on here.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I checked the RSP list and the Finnish media I had used were not mentioned there and the foreing media used were considered "generally reliable". Deloitte was not mentioned (well it's a company, not a media) so to be safe I removed it. And thanks for your fast reply DoubleGrazing!Jjanhone (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I can confirm that Talouselämä and Tekniikka & Talous are reliable indeed. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)