Template:Did you know nominations/Koo App

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 Z1720 (talk) 23:09, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Koo (social network)

(
)

Created by Aman.kumar.goel (talk). Self-nominated at 11:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC).

Collapsing prior review from Bahnfrend. DanCherek (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

  • Adequate sourcing: No - I checked only three of the sources, and two of them didn't support the relevant assertion. So, eg, where did the assertion that the messages are known as "Koos" come from? Similarly, where was the list of intended further languages sourced?
  • Neutral: Yes
  • Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: No - Can't tell yet, as the sources for some of the content are unclear.
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation

QPQ: No - Not done
Overall: I've added a link and made a minor amendment to the hook. Bahnfrend (talk) 12:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bahnfrend: I have addressed above issues with my recent edit. I don't think QPQ is needed because I have less than 5 nominations. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 11:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Extended content. DanCherek (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
  • It has been more than two weeks, and reviewer Bahnfrend has not returned; new reviewer needed to check the issues previously raised and see whether they have been addressed so the DYK criteria are met. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
New review by DanCherek
General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

  • Adequate sourcing: No - need sources for "first launched in Kannada", "Hindi", and all of the future languages. The Japan Times source says that Koo installs increased by 901,000, not that there were 901,000 installs
  • Neutral: Yes
  • Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: No - it would be great if the first two sentences of paragraph 3 (about Koo vs Twitter) could be reworded a little to make it more different from the source
  • Other problems: No - there are concerns on the talk page about the article's title, and whether it should be moved to Koo (app) or Koo (social network), these should be addressed (whether or not the page is ultimately moved) prior to approval. (FWIW, I think I agree that it should be moved since the name of the app is just "Koo")
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: None required.

Overall: @Aman.kumar.goel: Thanks for your patience with this nomination, sorry for the delay. See comments above, there are a few remaining things that I think should be resolved before approval. Let me know if you have any questions. DanCherek (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@DanCherek: Fixed these issues except the last one. The concern over the title might be outdated because it was 2 months ago and this microblogging service is referred to as "Koo App" in the sources that we have used. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 12:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
@Aman.kumar.goel: While the headlines say "Koo App", the prose in all of the sources call it "Koo", "the Koo platform", "the Koo app", etc., with no capitalization in "app". Reference [7] says: It is named just “Koo” on the App Store with Bombinate Technologies Private Limited as the provider. I think it's similar to how we have articles titled Twitter and Snapchat rather than "Twitter App" and "Snapchat App". Also, "first launched in Kannada", "Hindi", and all of the future languages should be sourced — I'm being annoying about this because if the unsourced material is removed it starts to approach the 1,500-character minimum DYK threshold. Thanks, let me know if you have any questions or if you want me to open it up for more opinions from WT:DYK. DanCherek (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Aman.kumar.goel; are you going to return to make the changes that the reviewer asked you about? It's been nearly a month now. If we don't hear from you in the next few days, this nomination will have to be closed. MeegsC (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5 and MeegsC: I have resolved all issues now. Let me know if any problems exist. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 05:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
DanCherek, how is it looking now? Do you approve it, or are there still issues? MeegsC (talk) 08:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Sigh... it's undergoing a big expansion by another user which is great for the article but always complicates things here. @Aman.kumar.goel: With the new content added by Badassboy 63637, there are now sections that need further copy-editing (e.g. capitalization issues, external links removal) and sources needed (e.g. "Most Followed Accounts" is unsourced). I also note the three editors on the talk page who are in support of a title change. DanCherek (talk) 12:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Aman.kumar.goel: Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Article has been moved to Koo (social network); I have adjusted this page to reflect the move except for the hook, which I'm not sure how to adjust beyond the link to the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Does this need a GOCE copyedit? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
The prose is generally fine and GOCE is probably not necessary; DYK-compliant sourcing is the only thing preventing this from being approved right now. DanCherek (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
After all the recent edits to the article, I don't see any serious issue with the article right now. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 10:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
There are two paragraphs in the article that are unsourced (in "Format, interface and features" and "Most followed accounts"); they need to be sourced per WP:DYKSG. DanCherek (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
@Aman.kumar.goel: Could you source the remaining unsourced paragraphs? Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: I have. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 07:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Pinging DanCherek to see whether the latest changes solve the sourcing issues. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping! All paragraphs sourced now so approving. DanCherek (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
The article refers to the app as Koo, Koo App, and Koo app. Which one is it? The hook doesn't sound that great with "got into a". Maybe ALT1 ... that the social network Koo became prominent after a weeks-long standoff between Twitter and the Government of India? SL93 (talk) 05:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
ALT1 looks fine to me. Thanks. DanCherek (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Unreferenced contact was just added to the article. SL93 (talk) 06:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Already removed by other editor. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 14:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Aman.kumar.goel Can you make the article consistent with what the subject is? SL93 (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Some sections read like an advert, others like a howto. Desertarun (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't think those issues necessarily make this nomination ineligible, rather it merely means that additional work is needed to bring the article up to standard. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Aman.kumar.goel: This is your final ping; if the issues are not addressed in a reasonable timeframe, the nomination will be closed. It is now the oldest active nomination and progress needs to be done if this is to be passed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't see any tagging for hours. It clearly seems that the issues have been resolved. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 23:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
  • There's a "primary sources" section tag that needs to be resolved. Schwede66 09:11, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Resolved by removing the primary source and merging in the existing section. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 10:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Pinging DanCherek and SL93, now that the article seems to have settled down. If the issues have been adequately addressed and the article meets the DYK criteria, perhaps this is ready to be approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
    • I've removed an unsourced statement from the article, but otherwise I think it's fine for DYK. DanCherek (talk) 03:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • DanCherek, in that case, are you willing to give this the appropriate tick icon? I don't think we'll be hearing from SL93; they've been quite active in the past few days yet haven't responded here. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes, sorry for the oversight! DanCherek (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Sorry, the word prominent in the hook is both Wp:Promo and WP:POV. Also the article is still using words like shot to prominence. Desertarun (talk) 10:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
  • There is no "POV" about it. See WP:DONTLIKEIT. I hope reviewers will ignore your comment since you haven't suggested anything but appear to be only trying to fail this nomination. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 03:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Desertarun, "shot to prominence" is puffery, and even "became prominent" is too much. I've edited the article to remove it, replacing it with 'got a boost' which looks like what the source supporting the assertion is saying? (Can't get to the whole article, but we'd need an attributed quote to ever use words like "shot to prominence".) I think the hook needs to be toned down further, perhaps to 'got a boost'? Aman.kumar.goel, please assume good faith, here. I understand that the peer review process is difficult, but you can't go around accusing other editors of trying to fail a nomination. The phrase "shot to prominence" absolutely is not neutral, so it is a POV problem. —valereee (talk) 10:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'd be surprised if valereee actually reckons that as puffery. A bit of generally written articles always have idioms, metaphors or phrases. Unless we are writing Simple English Wikipedia or it looks like an advertisement or a plain storyline or violates source, IMO it's fine. Same language is written quite neatly in WP:RS too. [1] [2] Also, what is the toned version if you can suggest? Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 03:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
I think all of those sound more neutral. —valereee (talk) 08:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for working on this. I support ALT2a and have modified the article to reflect this. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 09:29, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Need someone to approve ALT2a. —valereee (talk) 10:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: Yes
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Article created on 11 February, and expanded to acceptable size by date of initial nomination. Please address findings of Earwig tool, and upon correction, please get another person to reassess nomination. RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 19:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast: Which sources from Earwig are you concerned about? I took a look at the top three matches, which are dated June 10, July 4, and June 22, and I think they're reverse-copying from Wikipedia, given that the flagged text seems to appear in this revision of the article from June 9. DanCherek (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
@DanCherek: The highest Earwig score came from NGNews247 dated 10 June 2021. If there is consensus that this is fine, perhaps a new review can be done again, which should allow this nomination to ready.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I would guess that the NGNews247 is almost certainly copying from Wikipedia, given that matching phrases from revisions of the Wikipedia article from before the news item as published, and the fact that the news item is tagged with "KOO WIKIPEDIA". DanCherek (talk) 02:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
RightCowLeftCoast, under the circumstances with the source you questioned, you need to continue your review: no third person should be called at this point, especially as the nomination has been open for nearly five months. It is your responsibility to check to see whether the conflict noted by Earwig is caused by the source copying Wikipedia rather than vice versa. (I've just confirmed to my satisfaction that DanCherek has correctly identified that Wikipedia had the text in question before NGNews247.) Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
As consensus appears to support that NGNews247 has copied content from Wikipedia, coinciding with the way the article about the subject of this DYKN was written, that I will consider this AGF on potential close paraphrasing. and thus this article should pass.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 00:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
To T:DYK/P5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Koo_App&oldid=1033641158"