Template:Did you know nominations/Greenhouse Software
- 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 Allen3 talk 18:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Greenhouse Software
[edit]... that Greenhouse Software is predicted to be one of the next startup unicorns and has expanded from 45 to 125 employees in eight months?
Created by Cunard (talk). Self-nominated at 05:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC).
This is new and long enough. QPQ done. It is cited to reliable sources, no copyvios detected. The article is based primarily on factual statements rather than opinions or assertions, which seem to reflect the story being told in reliable sources. I think that the level of detail given to the funding is too great, and not enough focus is given to the actual product, but this is beyond the scope of the DYK review. I can't find anything in the letter of WP:NPOV, WP:DYK, or WP:DYKSG that is violated. I feel that the hook is jargony and feels promotional; I'm not sure if a prediction from a single source is appropriate here, even if it is attributed in-hook. I'd like to see more suggestions for hooks. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 00:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
The article is based primarily on factual statements rather than opinions or assertions
– an article based primarily on factual statements is a good thing, not a bad thing. An article based on opinions or assertions would not be a neutral article.I think that the level of detail given to the funding is too great, and not enough focus is given to the actual product, but this is beyond the scope of the DYK review.
– the sources give the most weight to the funding, so per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight this is the proper weight in the article. I agree that the article certainly can be expanded further though that is outside the scope of the DYK review.I feel that the hook is jargony and feels promotional; I'm not sure if a prediction from a single source is appropriate here, even if it is attributed in-hook. I'd like to see more suggestions for hooks.
– I think the hook fact is interesting, causing readers to wonder why a company is referred to as a unicorn. Jargon that "hooks" the readers' attention is fine in a DYK hook. I do not think stating the fact that it is predicted to become a unicorn is promotional.A possible alternative hook:
ALT1: ... that Greenhouse Software, which provides recruiting software for technology companies including Airbnb, Snapchat, and Uber, has expanded from 45 to 125 employees in eight months?
- I'm mostly concerned about WP:CRYSTAL. It's important not to make statements about the future without context. According to this article it was one of 50 such startups identified by a data algorithm developed by a research firm called CB Insights. That level of context is needed to justify the statement, especially in the context of a hook. (Your alt hook would be fine, too.) Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 13:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
