Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Typequick

< Template:Did you know nominations
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: rejected by Theleekycauldron (talk) 08:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Typequick

(
)
  • ... that Your Computer thought touch-typing software Typequick was "for budding software developers to study and seek to emulate? [1]
    • ALT1:... that the first Australian-designed PC product to be sold with the IBM logo was a Typequick product? [2]

Created by Coin945 (talk). Self-nominated at 05:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC).

Extended content
  • This fails several aspects of policy. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
1. There's substantial copy-paste from [3], [4], and [5] (see earwig report here). -- RoySmith (talk) 03:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Earwig's report found "Violation Unlikely", but due to your assertion above I will expound. Referring to the top-listed link in the report - 37.1% similarity - Earwig lists the following bits within the article as being from that source. I would argue these are facts that are difficult to paraphrase without changing the meaning. The other sources contain much fewer snippets than this.--Coin945 (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "sharply in 1986 when the first export sales were made. Japanese Management Consultant Company purchased the publishing and distribution rights"
  • "the first Australian-designed PC product to be sold with the IBM logo."
  • "learned to touch-type using Typequick, around half of them outside Australia, though the company still had only a handful of office and administrative staff."
  • "Toshiba, Mitsubishi and C. Itoh."
  • "bought 1600 copies of the program"
  • "reach a minimum typing speed of 25 words a minute"
  • "60% of the Japanese computer-managed keyboard training market"
  • " schools, colleges, corporations and the visually impaired"
  • "the keyboard competence of new employees"
  • "An Australian program being used to teach Japanese-language typing"
  • "nominated as the best-known training software in Japan by the Japanese computer journal Nikkei"
2. The image File:UCONN Stamford Building.jpg, noted as "own work" in commons, appears to be downloaded from https://www.business.uconn.edu/category/news/grad/pmba/page/2/ (© University of Connecticut). -- RoySmith (talk) 03:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I trusted that this image was in Creative Commons as it was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. If it is not, I can easily swap it out..--Coin945 (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
3. It also fails WP:NPOV; the overall tone of the article is to describe the company and its products in the best possible light, with numerous mentions of financial successes, positive product reviews, and awards received and no coverage of negative aspects. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • While I received a paid contribution to write this article (which is clearly outlined in the talk page), I did not write it with a bias. If you read through the sources yourself, you will see that there is very little negative coverage in the literature, and I made a note include those which I found. E.g. "Typequick's ‘learn to type’ branding became a misnomer with the introduction of Readquick", Jenny Sinclair of The Age suggested that Typequick was an "apparently banal idea", Australian PC World's Peter Viola disliked its more nonsensical sentences like 'fifi as she jailed Heidi Lee'.--Coin945 (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Additionally, before nominating for DYK I asked user Sergecross73 for their objective opinion on the article's neutrality, and while they weren't able to have an in-depth look at the time, they did note "My quick glance at it didn't show any glaring issues".Coin945 (talk) 11:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Note: Thank you for the review @RoySmith: I have added line breaks to your comments to make them easier to respond to one by one. :)--Coin945 (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Additional Note: I will also add that the reviewer RoySmith's talk page asserts, "I don't think a requirement to disclose goes far enough. The whole concept of being paid to edit Wikipedia on behalf of a client or employer is an inherent COI and should be banned outright.". I fear that ironically this preconception presents a COI issue as it has the potential to colour their review, and I therefore request a second opinion.--Coin945 (talk) 04:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Coin945 I know that you are disappointed, but I'm not sure what else I can say here. In my opinion, this fails WP:NPOV and it is not free of close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations and plagiarism. I saw that you thought my review wasn't very thorough and that I need to complete it. OK, here's the rest of the standard review:
    • It is new enough (create on July 12, submitted on the 17th).
    • Does not appear to have been in ITN or DYK before.
    • It is long enough.
    • Both ALT0 and ALT1 are acceptable hooks.
    • The article is adequately referenced.
    • There are no dispute templates.
    • I don't see any WP:BLP issues. There are a few statements about him personally, but they're all referenced and I'm going to AGF that the references support the statements.
The problem remains that this fails WP:NPOV and fails "does not contain plagiarism or close paraphrasing", as noted in my original review. You stated above that, "these are facts that are difficult to paraphrase without changing the meaning." I do not accept your premise. Certainly you could avoid the close paraphrasing and copying without changing the meaning.
WP:DYKR says the reviewer should fail the review, i.e. apply {{DYKno}}, if the article "requires considerable work before becoming eligible". If it were just the copy-paste problems, I would have marked it {{DYK?no}} ("eligibility requires additional work") because those problems could be fixed with a reasonable amount of work. I believe this article would require "considerable work" to fix the NPOV issues, and thus merits a {{DYKno}}.
As for the quote from my user page, you are correct, I do indeed believe we should not be allowing paid editing at all. However, I accept that it is policy that we do allow it, and frankly, I bend over backwards to accommodate that. You have met the requirements by disclosing your COI, so that is not an issue in this review. The issues are the NPOV and copy-paste problem as outlined above. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @RoySmith: I have addressed your comments above. The article should now be promotable. :) --Coin945 (talk) 02:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  1. After paraphrasing, Earwig's Copyvio Detector now says: "Violation Unlikely 7.4% (now 2.9%) similarity".
  2. The image has now been switched for one available under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication.
  3. The sentence "Minor criticism had been offered to Typequick's use of nonsensical sentences" has been added to both the intro and the Critical Reception intro paragraph to highlight the negative coverage that exists. The literature sharply shews toward positive coverage so it would be WP:OR to give more weight to what proportionally exists.
  • Official request for second review: While I have addressed RoySmith's points one by one and requested a follow-up, they have decided not to continue with their review. I believe this is unreasonable as there is concrete evidence that contradicts their statements regarding the article's eligibility. The article does not plagarise (the Earwig report and Creative Commons image) or have a bias (neutral well-sourced article; positive-slanted literature which proportinally effects Critical Reception section). RoySmith has decided against taking this evidence into account and has instead stuck with their original judgement. For this reason I officially request that RoySmith's review is closed and a second review is conducted.--Coin945 (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Pinging Nikkimaria to get a second opinion as to whether there is close paraphrasing that needs to be addressed. Thank you for checking. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:40, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Coin945, thanks, I had noted that in the extended content section before posting. Earwig can be useful for copyvio concerns (though even for them you can't take its word for "Violation Unlikely", since I've found copyright violations with percentages as low as 9%), but it is not designed to find close paraphrasing or some forms of plagiarism. It's why I requested that Nikkimaria take a look. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the update @BlueMoonset:. Please let me know if any of the images need to be altered or removed. I'm happy to do this.--Coin945 (talk) 06:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Note: I am accustomed to writing video game articles rather than company articles. For this reason the article includes sections like 'Critical reception'. If required I can easily convert the article in one about the video game series Typequick.--Coin945 (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately I don't have access to all of the sources used in the article or flagged as potentially problematic. Of the ones I can access, I'm not seeing anything overly concerning on spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Coin945, I have included this in the list of "Older nominations needing DYK reviewers" on the DYK talk page; I won't be reviewing it myself. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with this being re-reviewed, but don't get distracted from the major issue. The problems flagged by Earwig are relatively minor and easily fixed, and thus by themselves would not have caused me to fail the review. The reason this failed the review is WP:NPOV; the whole article reads like a puff piece for the product. In my opinion it "requires considerable work before becoming eligible", which is the criteria for {{DYKno}}. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
  • New reviewer needed for a second review. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: I'll take this one since it seems like nobody else wants it. The article checks out on most criteria (length, sourcing, age, copyvio, etc). The main issue is neutrality.

At first glance, it looked fine. After looking a little closer I saw a lot of citations to the company's website and "feel good" information that didn't need to be there. However, the issues looked pretty minor to me and the page was basically solid so I rolled up my sleeves and did some minor copyediting. I think the page itself is perfectly fine right now. But I don't know if the hook should be promoted per WP:DYKNOT since Coin945 is paid to create (and probably DYK) the page. That could easily be seen as a "means of advertising, or of promoting commercial ... causes."

The other problem is the hooks. Both are cited but neither are very interesting. ALT0 is just a quote praising the software, and ALT1 is almost painfully banal. Unfortunately I think the best option is probably to reject this nomination for the above issues. There's no shortage of nominations, and the front page of Wikipedia can probably do without knowing which Australian-designed PC product was the first to have an IBM logo. That's not to knock Coin945's hard work on this nom and the page. It was a good effort and came out pretty well. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Typequick&oldid=1040560460"