Template:Did you know nominations/H2O (software)
- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
H2O (software)
[edit].jpg)
- ... that Google optimizes its suggestions for each user according to the time of day by using the open-source software H2O of H2O.ai, which was founded by Cliff Click and SriSatish Ambati (pictured)?
- Comment: I started H2O.ai today, spinning off the business part from H2O (software), which I had expanded in the last 4 days. On 29 May 2015, the H2O (software) lacked sourcing, was not Wikified, and had problems tagged.[1] Almost nothing remains from the old version.[2] Since then, the H2O has been expanded more than 5 times (until I removed the business sections). Finally, please do not add links to the hook; all key-words are linked in the lede. Perhaps the H2O software link should not be emboldened? (The alternative hook is problematic/confusing because H2O.ai was known as 0xdata in 2014 when the "hacker" was named to an all-star team.)
- Reviewed: In silico clinical trials[3]
5x expanded and sourced by Dame Etna (talk). Self-nominated at 10:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC).
The articles are new enough, long enough and well cited. I only made some minor corrections/copyedits. The problem is that the H2O.ai is essentially a content fork of the original H2O article, with much the same content. This contravenes rule #1 of the eligibility criteria, "For DYK purposes, a "new" article is no more than seven days old, and may not consist of text spun off from a pre-existing article". In short, if one of the two articles is DYK-suitable, it is the H2O one, not the company. This means that the hooks should be rewritten, and the submission be limited to the software product. Otherwise the nomination appears to be solid. Constantine ✍ 12:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- I nominated first the software article, which I expanded five fold in the last 3 days. Today I realized the article really needed division into two articles, one on the software and one the company, so I spun off the new article using my new text. Please use a plagiarism-detector on the old article[4]] and the new article H2O.ai to see that at most 1-2 sentences remain from the old article, so it is not spun-off (in the sense that somebody cut and pasted existing text, the obvious intention of the rule).[5],[6] Dame Etna (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC) (Updated hood with picture. 07:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC))
- I fully agree that there is little text left over from the original version of the H2O article, before you began your work on it; the problem is that the text in the present articles is pretty much identical. H2O.ai is, for now at least, to about 80% a word-for-word copy of the "new" H2O article, which means that H2O.ai is a content fork of H2O, and so falls squarely under the clause mentioned above. Constantine ✍ 08:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- For clarity: A content fork of new text, written in the last 3 days, much of which has been removed from the software article.
- If I had put my new text in the new H2O.ai article and then used it to fix the old mess at H2O (software), all would be well I guess. I am sorry for having misread the rules. I just wanted to fix the article, and then I thought I could nominate it here. Perhaps I should have worked off line and consulted a DYK person before changing the old article. Maybe that WP:IAR could apply to my mistake, which was done in ignornace. Dame Etna (talk) Dame Etna (talk) 08:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- I am not sure, but I think it would probably equally have been a problem if you had started the H2O.ai article and then copied it into H2O (software), because then it would comprise about half the latter article. Anyhow, what is done is done. Please provide/rewrite a hook so that only the H2O (software) is bolded, and this nomination can be signed off. Constantine ✍ 10:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks! Following your instructions, I disemboldened H2O.ai. Dame Etna (talk) 10:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Original hook and ALT1 are interesting and referenced; QPQ review done; article in question is long enough, new enough, well-written and -referenced, no copyvio detected; image is suitably licensed and used although not necessarily linked directly to the product at hand. Good to go. --Constantine ✍ 16:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
@ reviewing DYK delegate: No idea if and how this impacts DYK, but the nominating user and main author has just been blocked as a sockpuppet. Constantine ✍ 16:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)