Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Tek Fog

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Tek Fog

(
)
  • ... that the web application Tek Fog was used by BJP to amplify right wing propaganda among Indians? Source: the app Tek Fog is used by users to "amplify right-wing propaganda to a domestic audience." The Indian news outlet also claimed the app had links to India's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Deutsche Welle
    • ALT1: ... that the web application Tek Fog was used to amplify right wing propaganda among Indians? Source: Same as above.
    • ALT2: ... that according to The Wire, the web application Tek Fog was used to amplify right-wing propaganda among Indians? Source: Same as above.

Created by Venkat TL (talk). Self-nominated at 12:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC).

  • Comment This cannot go unattributed, AT ALL. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment The contents of the article are currently contested, as the author is aware. It is requested that the DYK nomination is not accepted till outstanding issues are resolvedCaptain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I am not sure the last comment by User:CapnJackSp has been made in good faith. Several politically motivated IP users first tried to delete the article. AfD was closed as Keep. And now this guy is asking for an indefenite hold on on flimsy grounds. The article has 29 mentions of Wire and it is sufficiently attributed.Venkat TL (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Don't confuse me with other editors. You haven't added attribution to the very first sentence of the article. I can say more but this needs to be fixed first. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Full review needed. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
  • The article was new enough and long enough at the time of the nomination. No QPQ needed for a nominator with less than five QPQ credits. However, there are multiple issues with the article:
  • Firstly, several paragraphs in the article lack references or have a citation needed template.
  • Secondly, there is no clear description of exactly what the app even is, only what The Wire says about how it hacks. The article doesn't make it clear if Tek Fog is an app that is downloadable by App Stores and thus usable by an end-user, or a secret app that is not willingly or knowingly installed by users. It also doesn't state when it was first released or at least first known, as well as missing other basic app information.
  • Thirdly, the article doesn't seem to meet either WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE. The article is almost entirely about criticisms about the app, which seems undue weight in my opinion. At the very least, apart from the aforementioned issue about a lack of descriptions about the app itself, there should be more inclusions about denials and statements (or lack thereof) by relevant people in the article. The article lede notes that The ruling BJP and the prime minister Narendra Modi were silent.; however, this statement is completely unreferenced and is not mentioned anywhere else in the body. The denials in the article (under the section "Reactions of BJYM, Persistent Systems and ShareChat") are limited to a single paragraph: are these really the only denials given thus far by people or companies involved? If that is all that is available then that would be acceptable, but this needs to be clarified, and in any case I think the article may need some trimming since it focuses too much about the reactions to the app rather than the app itself.
  • Fourthly, the article may need clarifications for non-Indian readers. For example, "BYJM" is mentioned in the article but is not defined anywhere in the text (the lede mentions a "BJP youth wing", but the connection must be made clear).
  • Fifthly, the article needs a copyedit. Mentions of media outlets, such as The Wire, The Hindu, or Washington Post, need to be italicized. The article text also needs revising for grammar and other issues.
  • Finally, multiple concerns have been raised on the article talk page, and as far as I can tell, most have not been addressed.
Right now the article needs a lot of work to be approved for DYK. Since I am largely unfamiliar with Indian politics, I would also appreciate any input from an uninvolved Indian editor or someone else familiar with the topic, but right now, in its current state, I think the article is not ready for DYK. I would also suggest that the article be brought to WP:GOCE or otherwise be copyedited by an uninvolved editor. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
  1. Citation needed tags fixed.
  2. It is a PsyOps software whose access is limited to the operators and their Org. I have included the link in the lead.
  3. What is available has been added. WP:FALSEBALANCE. I will work to add refs, as asked
  4. Fixed
  5. GOCE copyedit requested
  6. All major / relevant concerns raised on talk page have already been resolved. While reviewing the talk page, Be advised that many users with political POV just want this article deleted/bowdlerized etc. Please refer to the AfD discussion to understand.
I will ping the reviewer when I am done with #3 and others. Venkat TL (talk) 11:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Your response to #2 needs to be clarified in the article itself, particularly in the lede and ideally in its own section. Rather than mentioning it in a section about The Wire's report, there should be a section about the app itself, perhaps using The Wire as a source. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Ok, I added it in the first line, I will flesh that part more as suggested.Venkat TL (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the edits. I will do the rest of the review once the copyedit has been done. However, I am still unhappy with the tone of the article and would welcome any second opinions regarding how to handle it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Note that the nominator now has had five DYK nominations on the main page, so a QPQ will be required for this one. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5 and BlueMoonset: I just donated a QPQ to move this forward. --evrik (talk) 04:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Note that the nominator has retired from Wikipedia, so if no one is able to adopt this nomination and resolve any remaining issues, this nomination will be closed as unsuccessful. I would also highly suggest rewriting the article to have a more neutral tone as currently it seems to have some tone issues and is also too focused on the criticism of the app rather than information about the app itself. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
    • I've struck the original hook and ALT1 per TrangaBellam's original objection. Note that the GOCE request made back on March 25 is listed after around three dozen earlier pending requests, and it could easily be several weeks before a copyeditor takes it on, with no guarantee that even if the tone is dealt with, the deficit of information about the app itself will be remedied. I don't think we should wait for the copyedit if the balance is problematic; if no one adopts this nomination soon—perhaps within the standard seven days?—it should be closed. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
      • Waiting for GOCE edit. --evrik (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  • @Narutolovehinata5: in regard to your comment above that the nominator retired from Wikipedia. So much went back and forth at AIV and here, that I can't remember who said what. The nominator appears to have retired from DYK. But they are busy editing elsewhere, and looks like it's just us. — Maile (talk) 01:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
I was referring to Venkat and while they have since returned after that ANI discussion, they are currently topic banned from DYK and so the nomination has to proceed without them. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. — Maile (talk) 01:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
It's time to reject and close this nomination. The article has not been adopted and still has multiple paragraphs without citations. Waiting for another WikiProject to copyedit this will not resolve the issues. Also, this nomination is approaching five months in age, and is no longer "new" material which DYK seeks to recognize. If this article achieves GA status, it can be nominated again. Flibirigit (talk) 11:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
      • I'd still like to see if the GOCE copy editing will make a difference. --evrik (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
As stated above, even if a copyedit is done, there is still the citation issues that need to be addressed. Copyediting would not resolve that. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
  • @Evrik: @Narutolovehinata5: @Maile66: @Flibirigit: For what it's worth, I've copyedited the article, and added a couple of citation needed templates (diff). The condition of the article as I initially found it, in respect of use of Standard English, punctuation and sufficient citations, was not too bad, because it had already been copyedited by JTF2020 (diff). I did notice that a couple of quotations did not quite match the source, so I edited the article to fit. I did not check the rest of the quotations - maybe they need a check, too. I accept that this will not assist this nom at this stage, but I did it anyway. Storye book (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
      • I'd like to see this get reviewed one last time to see if it will pass. --evrik (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
  • The article now has a GOCE construction tag, which is good news. I believe that it should be re-reviewed when they have finished their major copyedit. Storye book (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I confirm that the article is now ready for re-review, because it is now fully cited, and has been fully copyedited by GOCE. Storye book (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
  • By golly, I think we have it. I have given this article a thorough read-through, cleaning it up and further improving grammar while reducing the quote volume. There are no citation issues. ALT2 is a direct quote from The Wire, which broke this story, and this is attributed. I have added it to the article. This article has a bit higher quote shares than I typically accept, but because the Wire report is so vital to the article's content, because some of it is primary source material (the O'Brien letter and quotes from other statements), and because of NPOV issues, I am fine with this. The people that contributed to this have walked a tightrope, and it's amazing this article is finally acceptable. It took a herculean effort; I cannot recall a DYK that has sat longer than this one in some time. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Good job to everyone involved in this, especially Storye book for copyediting and Evrik for not giving up on the article. For your efforts, maybe both of you need a cookie. Everyone involved deserves at least a pat in the back. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Definitely agreed. Also noting that I'd like to see Evrik credited for donating a QPQ and shepherding this very complex nomination to completion. This could easily have been abandoned, and I know firsthand having taken on another page on current Indian politics that was too much of a hot potato to continue at DYK. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Tek_Fog&oldid=1089999842"