Jump to content

Talk:WhopperCoin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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 Yoninah (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • Reviewed: Don't have 5 DYKs yet.

Created/expanded by JPxG (talk). Self-nominated at 17:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • Currently full of cryptocurrency sites (crypto sites are regarded as from "generally unreliable" down to "pay-for-play spam") and self-sourcing; creator is edit-warring them back in. Should not be DYK'ed while it's not in a fit state - David Gerard (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @David Gerard: Props for your assistance in copyediting the article after I linked it to you on your talk page; I'm not very familiar with the state of the art on RS policy for cryptocurrency (the topic changes too quickly for me to stay up-to-date). I think everything is fine now, though.
I did add back some of the stuff you removed -- some of it after finding alternate RS that supported it, and some of the other stuff was already covered by the initial RS for the article, so it could simply be cited to that instead (good eye on the Forbes contributor article / the Newsweek thing, which had slipped my mind entirely). I kept the link to the press release by Waves and the asset page on their site, because it seems to me to fall under WP:ABOUTSELF -- but I'd be fine with taking them back out, since everything sourced to those pages is also covered by other inline references from RS as well (BBC, CNN, CNBC). I've either removed or commented out anything that I've been unable to find a non-contested source for so far. I appreciate your candor -- is there anything in the article right now that lacks RS? (I couldn't find anything in the RSN archives showing consensus for CoinTelegraph, but it wasn't a very important source, so I've simply taken it out) jp×g 18:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Crypto sites have a terrible problem with COI down to blatant pay-for-play. CoinDesk is the only one to get as far as WP:RSP, and there are links there to the past discussions, but others are considered similarly. Article still has bitcoin.com (a promotional site for Bitcoin Cash) in as I write this - David Gerard (talk) 12:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My main concern is that removing material that reflects poorly on the subject makes the article less neutral. While it's certainly possible to have an article based solely on the Fortune/CNBC/BBC/etc pieces (indeed, that's what we have now -- the WP:ABOUTSELF references to the press release were corroborated by other sources), there are certain key facts -- it resulted in legal action against the company, it stopped being traded on exchanges, it got delisted from the website of its backing platform -- which I think it's important to mention in the name of accuracy. For example, without cryptocurrency news sites, the only references for it being delisted from Waves' asset pages are the asset pages themselves. I don't mean to imply that you are coming at this with a pro-WhopperCoin bias (I mean, I don't think anybody is, since by all reasonable measures it stopped existing years ago) -- I just don't like the idea of glossing over the negative aspects. jp×g 05:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with covering cryptocurrencies is that the sourcing isn't fit for Wikipedia in way too many cases - because many of these things are barely notable - David Gerard (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This has all been fixed; are there any other issues? jp×g 05:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, much better thanks! - David Gerard (talk) 08:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
this nomination still needs a full review. Flibirigit (talk) 15:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article is long enough and new enough with no copyright violations. The hook is directly cited. A QPQ is not needed. I am not a fan of ALT1, but I do like the first hook. Thanks David Gerard for the sourcing help. SL93 (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

[edit]

Wikipedia crypto articles don't accept cryptocurrency sites as sources - they're considered utterly untrustworthy sources. We need to stick to reliable sources. This would be enough to scupper a DYK. That's why I removed them - David Gerard (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I already responded to the comment above on the DYK nomination, but I'll go into a little more depth here: while I'm grateful for a second set of eyes on sourcing (which was why I posted this on your talk page), some of the content you removed was actually supported by multiple sources. For example, Waves ran a blockchain ledger (a distributed record of transactions resistant to tampering or alteration), which tracked ownership of WhopperCoin and recorded transactions was mentioned not only in the Waves press release, but in the BBC, CNBC and CNN articles as well. I agree that I made an oversight in having inline refs that only rested on the unreliable source -- I was trying to avoid cluttering up the text, but I don't think any of the stuff in the article right now is uncited. jp×g 19:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason to still use bitcoin.com as a source - it's simply not an RS - David Gerard (talk) 12:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A little bit belated, but thanks for helping out with the sourcing issues here, in the DYK nom, and in the peer review. Everything seems to be fine now (and future coverage is unlikely) so I think this is probably going to be the stable version of this article for a while. Hats off! jp×g 23:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:WhopperCoin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 17:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments by the end of the week. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Basic stuff and comments

[edit]
  • Lead should summarize the entire article so try expanding it.
  • "June of that year" - of which year?
  • "on 24 August" - of what year?
  • Couldn't find any issues in #Impact.
  • Wired → Wired
References
  • Archive sources (either manually or with this tool).
  • Mark references from Fortune with "|url-access=subscription".
  • Mark references from Adweek with "|url-access=subscription".
  • Mark references from New York Magazine with "|url-access=limited".

Progress

[edit]
GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WhopperCoin&oldid=1202140175"