- The following discussion 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 Miyagawa (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Volunia
edit- ... that Volunia, a potential competitor to Google, has been reported to be the "search engine of the future"?
Created/expanded by Pikks (talk), Nearlymiddling (talk). Nominated by Pikks (talk) at 18:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
The hook is blatantly promotional, and not neutral. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 13:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your review. What part is non neutral? Please propose an alternative hook with the same meaning but neutral. Thank you --★ Pikks ★ MsG 13:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Volunia "is known as the search engine of the future" it is an opinion with prediction and judgmental language. Being a opinionated judgmental prediction, this statement is not a fact and not neutral, and is promotional in tone. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 14:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for your opinion. I think that "is the search engine of the future" is non neutral, however "is known as the search engine of the future" is neutral, but I agree with you that it can be understood in a different way. So I would change the hook as follows:
- Alt1 that Volunia is considered a potential competitor to Google and somebody thinks it will be the search engine of the future?
- Alt2 that Volunia is considered a potential competitor to Google but it's different than normal search engines?
Which alternative you think is the best? Thanks --★ Pikks ★ MsG 14:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think the alternate hooks suffer from the same problem. Requesting third opinion. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 14:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks good idea. From my experience and from what is in the WP:DYK rules I can see that the hook should be ""hooky", that is, short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article." So I can suggest also a 3 alternative which is supported by the biggest Italian national newspaper:
 Response to third opinion request ( Suitability of hook for DYK ):
|
| I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Did you know nominations/Volunia and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. |
|
I am experienced with the DYK process (both as an article nominator, and a hook reviewer, but I haven't visited DYK in several weeks and I have no interest or previous involvement in this particular nomination. If the translation of the Polish article is literally that it is "the search engine of the future" then I think it makes a great hook. However I know zero Polish, so I'm not qualified to translate the original article, and Google's translation does not seem to support this literal translation. If this can be proven, then I would keep the original hook, but tweak it slightly for grammar:
I think that enclosing the quote in quotation marks, and using the term "reported to be" makes it clear that a WP:RS is making this claim, not Wikipedia, and I think it is not blatantly promotional. I stress that this hook is only valid if it is confirmed that the source is accurately being quoted, something that I can not confirm, but that User:Pikks might be able to do. If the accuracy of the quote is not able to be confirmed, then I would suggest searching the article for another fact to hook, none of the alternatives are particularly good and/or "hooky". Livit⇑Eh?/What? 16:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)—Livit⇑Eh?/What? 16:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC) |
- Thank you for your exhaustive and detailed 3O. I can confirm that - as it appears in the article references, as a quotation - the phrase "jak mogłaby wyglądać wyszukiwarka przyszłości" means "how would look like the search engine of the future".
For this reason I go ahead and change the hook with the neutral one you have proposed. --★ Pikks ★ MsG 16:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Hook changed. Good to go. --★ Pikks ★ MsG 16:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. As a native Polish speaker who did not work on the article, I confirm the above translation. Here's a more complete quotation from the source article: Volunia jest silnikiem wyszukiwania opartym w dużej mierze na interakcjach społecznościowych. Według Marchiori, jest to próba pokazania, jak mogłaby wyglądać wyszukiwarka przyszłości. Translation: "Volunia is a search engine based to a great extent on social interactions. According to Marchiori, it is an attempt to show what a search engine of the future may look like." — Kpalion(talk) 20:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
