Template:Did you know nominations/Cloud Native Processor
- 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 BorgQueen (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Cloud Native Processor
- ... that cloud-native processors allow for scalability, cost-effectiveness and better energy efficiencies than legacy computer processors in the cloud? Source: https://www.eetimes.eu/cloud-native-processors-for-a-cloud-native-world/
- ALT1: ... that cloud-native processors allow for simultaneous connections in a cloud environment resulting in scalability? Source: https://www.sdxcentral.com/articles/news/amd-takes-on-intel-with-cache-stacked-milan-x-epycs/2022/03/ https://pcper.com/2020/06/ampere-expands-altra-lineup-to-include-128-core-altra-max-processors/ https://www.theregister.com/2021/10/19/alibaba_yitian_710_arm_server_cpu/
- Reviewed: My Neighbour Totoro (play)
Draft created by Tp08080mssng (talk). Moved to mainspace by Bogger. Nominated by Bogger (talk) at 18:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC).
I haven't checked the article yet so this is more of a preliminary review, but I'm not sure if either hook is going to be understandable much to non-techies out there. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- The most jargony terms are wiki-linked, 'legacy' means 'inherited', 'old', 'status-quo'. So "If you don't know, now you know" -Bogger (talk) 06:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- If a hook is very reliant on links to explain the main gist of the hook, then it's probably unlikely to be perceived to be intriguing by non-specialist readers. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Continuing the review: the article was moved to mainspace on November 30, the date of the nomination, and is also of appropriate length. The hooks are cited inline to the same source and verified: however, given that the source is an opinion piece, I'm not sure if it's good enough for a source, so I may have to ask for a second opinion about it. QPQ has been done and no close paraphrasing was found. As mentioned above, both hooks are probably too technical for non-specialists, so alternative hooks will probably be needed here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- Update: I asked for advice from Theleekycauldron off-wiki and she told me that hooks cited to opinion pieces cannot present information as fact. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:08, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Bogger: If a non-specialist hook is not proposed within a reasonable timeframe, the nomination may be marked for closure as unsuccessful. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:09, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
A non-specialist hook was not proposed and neither of the current options are likely to intrigue non-specialists. Marking for closure for lack of a suitable hook; in addition, the original hook is not suitable anyway owing to it being cited inline to an opinion piece and presenting information as fact. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
