Template:Did you know nominations/Koo App
- 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 Z1720 (talk) 23:09, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
DYK toolbox |
---|
Koo (social network)
- ... that the Koo App shot to prominence after Twitter got into a weeks-long standoff with the government of India? Source:Japan Times article
- ALT1:... that the social network Koo became prominent after a weeks-long standoff between Twitter and the Government of India?
Created by Aman.kumar.goel (talk). Self-nominated at 11:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC).
Policy compliance:
QPQ: - Not done
|
Policy compliance:
Overall: @Aman.kumar.goel: Thanks for your patience with this nomination, sorry for the delay. See comments above, there are a few remaining things that I think should be resolved before approval. Let me know if you have any questions. DanCherek (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
@Aman.kumar.goel: Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
|
- Sorry, the word prominent in the hook is both Wp:Promo and WP:POV. Also the article is still using words like shot to prominence. Desertarun (talk) 10:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- There is no "POV" about it. See WP:DONTLIKEIT. I hope reviewers will ignore your comment since you haven't suggested anything but appear to be only trying to fail this nomination. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 03:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Desertarun, "shot to prominence" is puffery, and even "became prominent" is too much. I've edited the article to remove it, replacing it with 'got a boost' which looks like what the source supporting the assertion is saying? (Can't get to the whole article, but we'd need an attributed quote to ever use words like "shot to prominence".) I think the hook needs to be toned down further, perhaps to 'got a boost'? Aman.kumar.goel, please assume good faith, here. I understand that the peer review process is difficult, but you can't go around accusing other editors of trying to fail a nomination. The phrase "shot to prominence" absolutely is not neutral, so it is a POV problem. —valereee (talk) 10:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
- Well, I'd be surprised if valereee actually reckons that as puffery. A bit of generally written articles always have idioms, metaphors or phrases. Unless we are writing Simple English Wikipedia or it looks like an advertisement or a plain storyline or violates source, IMO it's fine. Same language is written quite neatly in WP:RS too. [1] [2] Also, what is the toned version if you can suggest? Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 03:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- ALT2a:... that the social network Koo increased in popularity after the 2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest caused a weeks-long standoff between Twitter and the government of India?
- ALT2b:... that the social network Koo got a boost after the 2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest caused a weeks-long standoff between Twitter and the government of India?
- ALT3:... that the user base of social network Koo had a surge after the 2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest caused a weeks-long standoff between Twitter and the government of India?
- I think all of those sound more neutral. —valereee (talk) 08:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for working on this. I support ALT2a and have modified the article to reflect this. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 09:29, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- I think all of those sound more neutral. —valereee (talk) 08:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Need someone to approve ALT2a. —valereee (talk) 10:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing:
- Neutral:
- Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: -
Earwig tool found a "possible violation" of close wording https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Koo+%28social_network%29&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0
Hook eligibility:
- Cited:
- Interesting:
- Other problems:
QPQ: None required. |
Overall: Article created on 11 February, and expanded to acceptable size by date of initial nomination. Please address findings of Earwig tool, and upon correction, please get another person to reassess nomination. RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 19:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- @RightCowLeftCoast: Which sources from Earwig are you concerned about? I took a look at the top three matches, which are dated June 10, July 4, and June 22, and I think they're reverse-copying from Wikipedia, given that the flagged text seems to appear in this revision of the article from June 9. DanCherek (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- @DanCherek: The highest Earwig score came from NGNews247 dated 10 June 2021. If there is consensus that this is fine, perhaps a new review can be done again, which should allow this nomination to ready.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
- I would guess that the NGNews247 is almost certainly copying from Wikipedia, given that matching phrases from revisions of the Wikipedia article from before the news item as published, and the fact that the news item is tagged with "KOO WIKIPEDIA". DanCherek (talk) 02:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
- RightCowLeftCoast, under the circumstances with the source you questioned, you need to continue your review: no third person should be called at this point, especially as the nomination has been open for nearly five months. It is your responsibility to check to see whether the conflict noted by Earwig is caused by the source copying Wikipedia rather than vice versa. (I've just confirmed to my satisfaction that DanCherek has correctly identified that Wikipedia had the text in question before NGNews247.) Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
- As consensus appears to support that NGNews247 has copied content from Wikipedia, coinciding with the way the article about the subject of this DYKN was written, that I will consider this AGF on potential close paraphrasing. and thus this article should pass.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 00:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- RightCowLeftCoast, under the circumstances with the source you questioned, you need to continue your review: no third person should be called at this point, especially as the nomination has been open for nearly five months. It is your responsibility to check to see whether the conflict noted by Earwig is caused by the source copying Wikipedia rather than vice versa. (I've just confirmed to my satisfaction that DanCherek has correctly identified that Wikipedia had the text in question before NGNews247.) Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
- I would guess that the NGNews247 is almost certainly copying from Wikipedia, given that matching phrases from revisions of the Wikipedia article from before the news item as published, and the fact that the news item is tagged with "KOO WIKIPEDIA". DanCherek (talk) 02:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
- @DanCherek: The highest Earwig score came from NGNews247 dated 10 June 2021. If there is consensus that this is fine, perhaps a new review can be done again, which should allow this nomination to ready.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)