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 Bruxton (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
Interesting:
QPQ: None required.
Overall: This was a quick read and an interesting article. Overall everything looks fine, there aren't any major issues that stand out and I don't notice anything in need of copyediting. I'm assuming good faith on the Times source as it seems like it's paywalled. Happy to pass the review! ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 06:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
@Isi96, Keivan.f, and ThadeusOfNazereth:Archived article for the hook. However, I believe we should have a hook about the bot, not about the person Bouzy. I was confused since we are featuring a hook about a coding nine year old and the hook says nothing about the company. Bruxton (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
@Bruxton: Bot Sentinel is the name of a company, not a bot. The hook also mentions that it's the founder of the company. Hope that clears things up. Isi96 (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
yes. I was ooking for a hook about the company. This hook leads me other places Bruxton (talk) 01:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
@Isi96 and ThadeusOfNazereth: I'm afraid the article doesn't meet sourcing requirements. Hello!, multiple Business Insider, Law.com, The Information, and Mashable India sources all represent various levels of dubiousness, especially as some have BLP claims attached. Can we take care of that? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Sure, I'll take a look tomorrow. The Information seems to be a reliable source, though. Isi96 (talk) 14:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: Could you articulate your specific issues? I don't understand why you're bunching The Information, the New Jersey Law Journal, and Business Insider in with the Hello source and Mashable India. Both the Business Insider articles look fine to me - Definitely on the better side of that site. It's not clear to me why the New Jersey Law Journal should be considered dubious. It's not clear to me why The Information should be considered unreliable. I don't have an opinion on the Mashable India article other than that it's pretty much just restating the API drama as tweeted by Bouzy. Hello should probably go. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 16:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
The Information and New Jersey Law Journal were my mistake. BI might be okay, not convinced, but Hello and MI probably gotta go, yeah. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
One last thing. Since we do have a section on the founder, I found it useful to also mention what he was doing with his previous firms. It's not a huge addition to the article but considering the fact that The Times had brought it up, I used the press releases put out by the corporations at the time to add a little bit more detail. Hopefully no one will be opposing to this change. Keivan.fTalk 02:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
moving the tick to the bottom Bruxton (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
This was a quick read and an interesting article. Overall everything looks fine, there aren't any major issues that stand out and I don't notice anything in need of copyediting. I'm assuming good faith on the Times source as it seems like it's paywalled. Happy to pass the review! ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 06:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
moving the tick to the bottom Bruxton (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)