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 Victuallers (talk) 08:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Sbmeirow There is are two serious problems, 82.2% copyvio, though it appears to be copied from a WordPress account published later. So on copyright reasons, I have to give this a miss. Also not help is that the DYK blurb came from a primary source (Microsoft's own website); so unless something is done, I've have to give it a miss I'm afraid. Second opinions anybody? Donnie Park (talk) 11:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Donnie Park, the thing about the copyvio detector is that it can't tell who copied whom. It's only a problem for DYK if the Wikipedia article copied the other article, not if someone else copied us. If the WordPress is a copy of the Wikipedia article (which it is; the WordPress dates from October 22, and the Wikipedia article well predates that; you have only to look at the October 21 version on Wikipedia to see who copied whom), then it's irrelevant. There's a 58.6% probability listed for the windows10update site, but it's a Windows fan site, so again it seems likely that they copied Wikipedia, since the single paragraph involved was copied word for word (except that they broke it into three paragraphs). One thing you can always check is how the Wikipedia paragraph came together: in this case, it was revised into its current form on October 21 with this edit. I don't mind that a basic fact like "machined magnesium" is from an authoritative primary source; what I do mind is that I just clicked on the link and the information is not there on that web page. (A link there to the technical specs, which is on a different web page, merely gives "magnesium".) Under the circumstances, SSTflyer, I think that this hook will need a different source for machined magnesium; if it's secondary rather than primary, that's even better. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
ALT1: ... that the Surface Book is constructed from magnesium? sst✈discuss 17:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Whilst the original hook would have passed in 2010, I'll go ask for an second opinion GrammarFascist because I am not an admin, neither had a single GA page yet. It just every nominators have to go this pesky process since this QPC thing started and because I did not do any new articles until recently, I didn't think about it. Donnie Park (talk) 17:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, @Donnie Park, Sbmeirow, and SSTflyer: In my opinion being made of magnesium is an uncontroversial enough fact that a primary source is acceptable for DYK purposes, while still being interesting. (Obviously it would be better to have a secondary source; maybe the tech press doesn't find it as interesting a fact as I do, though.) What the cited source actually says is that the casing is made of magnesium, and I feel that ALT1 implies that the internal components are made of magnesium as well, which doesn't seem to be true. Hence, I suggest:
ALT2: ... that the Surface Book's casing is constructed from magnesium?
The article text would need to reflect that distinction as well, of course, if ALT2 can be agreed upon by both reviewer and nominator otherwise. Incidentally, I'm not an administrator either, and I've only helped get one article to GA so far, though I'm proud of that one. But thanks for inviting me to give a second opinion; I hope it helped. —GrammarFascistcontribstalk 18:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I prefer ALT2, so in that case [retracted]. Donnie Park (talk) 12:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Donnie Park, your review should cover those aspects of the article you have checked: this includes newness, size, hook and article neutrality, hook fact in the article and the given source (the page linked to by that source URL does not have the word "magnesium" anywhere on that page and a different URL will be needed), and close paraphrasing/copyvio/plagiarism. Also, the article still states that the tablet and keyboard are made from "machined magnesium", and both words need to be sourced as long as it remains in the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Shame that the article does not make any referencing to how the hinge is designed to roll like carpets as that could had been used as a hook, unless changes can be made to accommodate that, I'll have to leave it as it is. Other than that, it meets the minimums for article length (6509 characters), nominated within the required time period. Donnie Park (talk) 02:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I added a reference for "machined magnesium", so now you may use the main hook as well. sst✈discuss 00:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I was going to pass this but still, I am not going to have to refuse in this current edit (the article itself) this due to plagarisms as there are texts directly lifted from its sources, so unless the text is totally rewritten, my decision to refuse still stand. Donnie Park (talk) 01:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I just checked copyvios. The results are due to other websites copying Wikipedia, not the other way round. sst✈discuss 03:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Overall: Apologies for the last comment, this time I ignored the search engine results and the result turned out better. 6509 characters (1075 words); expanded 5x 18:29, 6 October 2015, although not created as claimed despite in a short time before, starting life as a crappy one line WP:PROD prone edit; nominated 07:47, 12 October 2015; so therefore nominated within 7 days of its edit. I'll get another reviewer to get a second opinion but it doesn't look bad, it should pass with the new source. I say go with ALT2. Donnie Park (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Donnie Park, I agree that this nomination looks GTG. Since SSTflyer did succeed in finding a source for the casing's use of machined magnesium, though, I suggest one last tweak to the hook, which as the reviewer you'd need to okay:
Sbmeirow There is are two serious problems, 82.2% copyvio, though it appears to be copied from a WordPress account published later. So on copyright reasons, I have to give this a miss. Also not help is that the DYK blurb came from a primary source (Microsoft's own website); so unless something is done, I've have to give it a miss I'm afraid. Second opinions anybody? Donnie Park (talk) 11:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Donnie Park, the thing about the copyvio detector is that it can't tell who copied whom. It's only a problem for DYK if the Wikipedia article copied the other article, not if someone else copied us. If the WordPress is a copy of the Wikipedia article (which it is; the WordPress dates from October 22, and the Wikipedia article well predates that; you have only to look at the October 21 version on Wikipedia to see who copied whom), then it's irrelevant. There's a 58.6% probability listed for the windows10update site, but it's a Windows fan site, so again it seems likely that they copied Wikipedia, since the single paragraph involved was copied word for word (except that they broke it into three paragraphs). One thing you can always check is how the Wikipedia paragraph came together: in this case, it was revised into its current form on October 21 with this edit. I don't mind that a basic fact like "machined magnesium" is from an authoritative primary source; what I do mind is that I just clicked on the link and the information is not there on that web page. (A link there to the technical specs, which is on a different web page, merely gives "magnesium".) Under the circumstances, SSTflyer, I think that this hook will need a different source for machined magnesium; if it's secondary rather than primary, that's even better. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Donnie Park, your review should cover those aspects of the article you have checked: this includes newness, size, hook and article neutrality, hook fact in the article and the given source (the page linked to by that source URL does not have the word "magnesium" anywhere on that page and a different URL will be needed), and close paraphrasing/copyvio/plagiarism. Also, the article still states that the tablet and keyboard are made from "machined magnesium", and both words need to be sourced as long as it remains in the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I was going to pass this but still, I am not going to have to refuse in this current edit (the article itself) this due to plagarisms as there are texts directly lifted from its sources, so unless the text is totally rewritten, my decision to refuse still stand. Donnie Park (talk) 01:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Apologies for the last comment, this time I ignored the search engine results and the result turned out better. 6509 characters (1075 words); expanded 5x 18:29, 6 October 2015, although not created as claimed despite in a short time before, starting life as a crappy one line WP:PROD prone edit; nominated 07:47, 12 October 2015; so therefore nominated within 7 days of its edit. I'll get another reviewer to get a second opinion but it doesn't look bad, it should pass with the new source. I say go with ALT2. Donnie Park (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)