Template:Did you know nominations/Google Photos
- 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) 00:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Google Photos
[edit]- ... that The Verge wrote that Google Photos has obsoleted the concept of paying for digital photo storage?
- Reviewed: Nuzlocke
Created by Czar (talk). Self-nominated at 22:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC).
Date and length fine. However the source used for the hook, I can't see the word obsolete in it so it would be inaccurate to run this hook if the source doesn't support it. Can the hook be changed slightly to reflect what the source says or can another source be found for it? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- @The C of E, thanks for the review! The direct quote is "Between the new Flickr and now this, paying for storage as we know it is dead ..." "Obsolete" is not quoted but a paraphrase of the source, which I think was fair, no? – czar 09:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Czar: Yes I did see that and have no problem with it. The issue I have is the article insinuates that The Verge wrote it, when the source doesn't. Maybe if the sentence in the article could be reworded? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- @The C of E, sorry, I don't follow. The workflow is:
Not sure what you mean by the source not insinuating that The Verge wrote it? – czar 13:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)"Between the new Flickr and now this, paying for storage as we know it is dead ..." ref →
"With this move [introduction of the service], The Verge wrote that the idea of paying for photo storage has become obsolete" (as paraphrased in WP article) →
"The Verge wrote that Google Photos has obsoleted the concept of paying for digital photo storage?" (the above hook)
It was more of the insinuation that they didn't say obsolete. Nevertheless,, on second look it should pass DYK so GTG on it. 16:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- @The C of E, sorry, I don't follow. The workflow is:
- @Czar: Yes I did see that and have no problem with it. The issue I have is the article insinuates that The Verge wrote it, when the source doesn't. Maybe if the sentence in the article could be reworded? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- @The C of E, thanks for the review! The direct quote is "Between the new Flickr and now this, paying for storage as we know it is dead ..." "Obsolete" is not quoted but a paraphrase of the source, which I think was fair, no? – czar 09:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
As was briefly noted on the article the other day, and will be again shortly, this article has a single publication's viewpoint and thus has balance and neutrality problems. I did a quick scan of other potential and known reliable sources, and found far more nuance in Google Photo's capabilities and limitations, as well as some negative viewpoints. For this nomination to meet DYK's neutrality rule and multiple-source preference, more needs to be done; at the moment, this is The Verge's view of Google Photos, and it needs to be more than that for DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset, the difference a week of coverage makes. Reinstate tick? – czar 09:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
New reviewer needed to check neutrality and sourcing now that the article has been expanded. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hey, I may as well be that new reviewer. Everything looks good with the nomination (QPQ, hook and such), as per the initial review, and the attempts to balance the neutrality of the article have done the job. Sourcing is also really good.
- Good to go! -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 23:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
