Template:Did you know nominations/Nexus 5X, Nexus 6P
- 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: rejected by sst✈(discuss) 05:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Withdraw; article is not neutral at this point
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Nexus 5X, Nexus 6P
[edit]... that the Nexus 5X and Nexus 6P serve as launch devices for Android Marshmallow?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Afyonkarahisar Archaeological Museum and Template:Did you know nominations/William L. Uanna
- Comment: Failed ITN nomination
Created by AkshayAnand (talk). Nominated by SSTflyer (talk) at 02:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC).
@AkshayAnand, SSTflyer: Some close paraphrasing found in both articles: though this tool shows "violation unlikely" in the 5X article, some techie jargon in the "Specifications" section could be rephrased; 6P shows "violation possible" but mostly through false positives. Both neglect to mention that the devices serve to launch Marshmallow, and 6P lacks a source that it runs Marshmallow altogether. Minor fixes, and all else checks out (dates, QPQs, neutrality). 23W 17:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the Nexus 5X will qualify: a large chunk of the Hardware section and first sentence of Software were copied from Nexus 6P with this edit, which amounts to 1400 duplicated prose characters. Since the phone articles were started at about the same time, there may be other instances of copying (acknowledged or unacknowledged) that, when added to the 1400, would leave the 5X at fewer than 1500 original prose characters. I have added a couple of additional DYKmakes for the 6P, as the original article was a short stub and these people appear to have made significant additions to it. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- OK then, remove Nexus 5X from this.
- ALT1: ... that the Nexus 6P will be compatible with Project Fi, Google's own mobile network? sst✈discuss 14:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
It's been over a week. New reviewer requested to check the Nexus 6P nomination and ALT1 hook for it; I've removed Nexus 5X from the various templates on the page. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- On it. — LlywelynII 04:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- @6P: New enough at time of submission; long enough (~3600 elig. char.); some of the page's references are badly formatted or—as with this help forum post and this blog article—not necessarily quality reliable sources but that just makes the page a bit ugly and make-shift: overall, it's neutral and some sourcing is better than its absence... and the creator, nominator, or somebody needs to address the cut-and-paste phrasing being used before the review goes on to the rest of the topic. I understand some terms (co-development, marketing) may simply be the best way to describe certain things but kindly play around with them, the less important ones, and the order until it looks a little bit more like you did your own homework. Ping me when those percentages are down. — LlywelynII 04:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- @LlywelynII: It is the blog that is copying Wikipedia, not the other way round. Also, copy-and-pasting specifications is pretty much unavoidable. sst✈(discuss) 04:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- @6P: New enough at time of submission; long enough (~3600 elig. char.); some of the page's references are badly formatted or—as with this help forum post and this blog article—not necessarily quality reliable sources but that just makes the page a bit ugly and make-shift: overall, it's neutral and some sourcing is better than its absence... and
- Ok: These guys copied this version of the page; same thing happened with some of the others; and the 'copyvio' from Google's sites are just specs. Unless you insert that they're a quotation from user "raybandz" at Whirlpool Forums, though, his bullet points on known issues need to be reworked since the page didn't mention them at the time of his review. This also needs reworking since this is what the page looked like the day before, unless you can find some timestamps. — LlywelynII 10:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)