Template:Did you know nominations/Read It Later
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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 01:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Read It Later
- ... that the application Read It Later raised $2.5 million this year?
- Reviewed: Another Nail in My Heart
- Comment: TechCrunch has editorial oversight by an editor that has written for the New York Times, InSync, USA Weekend, Popular Mechanics, Popular Science, and Money. Engadget has many editors. Both of the websites are now part of AOL.
Created/expanded by SL93 (talk). Self nom at 00:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- ALT1 ... that the application Read It Later raised $2.5 million in 2011?
- ALT2 ... that the application Read It Later obtained venture capital investments totaling $2.5 million in 2011?
Article and hook check out. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- The hook made no sense to me (what did "raised" mean in this context?) and the article didn't help. After reading the cited source and some other material, I determined that this was venture capital funding. I've edited the article accordingly, but the hook also needs work. --Orlady (talk) 23:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Does this really need sections? It looks stubby with so many sections. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- That is correct, but there is a requirement for the articles to not be stubs. With 1850 charcters and 4 sections (5 including the lede), this looks like a stub. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- It is 1,956 characters and it is not a stub for DYK purposes. I don't see how removing the sections would make it look less like a stub in your opinion. I was complained to before for leaving out sections in a DYK nom so this is odd to me.SL93 (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)\
- Also, you can't just not pass something because you think that it looks stubby. The two above editors never mentioned it and I disagree. It does pass DYK criteria. SL93 (talk) 14:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Alrighty... I don't think it was me who complained about the lack of sectioning. For some articles, sectioning may come too soon, even if they are 1500 chars in length. I'm not especially happy with the article as-is, but since there seems to be consensus that it is long enough, I'll hold my peace. Tick based on previous review. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, WP:DYKSG notes that even articles above the minimum length may be considered too short. I, for one, would not pass an article on Women in Zimbabwe if it were 1500 characters. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- That is correct, but there is a requirement for the articles to not be stubs. With 1850 charcters and 4 sections (5 including the lede), this looks like a stub. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
