Template:Did you know nominations/Splitwise
- 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 reviewer, closed by Launchballer talk 13:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Splitwise
- ... that Splitwise brought about ideas on how to handle money-related conversations with friends and family? Source: Tibken, Shara (2024-05-14). "The Best Way to Split the Check at Group Dinners—and Not Leave Grumpy". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2024-07-22.
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Li–Fraumeni syndrome
- Comment: Happy to provide paywalled article text by email—thanks for the review!
Bsoyka (t • c • g) 05:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC).
- Not reviewing, but PSA: Use archive.ph to jump the paywall. It's probably legal. Bremps... 08:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
this is the opposite of good to go.
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
Hook eligibility:
- Cited:
- that's not what the source says: To ensure people pay their fair amount, try a bill-splitting calculator like the free, popular Splitwise. Everyone enters what they paid for, such as one person covering dinner and another covering pre-meal drinks. Then the app shows what people owe each other. In my testing, I found that it serves the most needs.
- Interesting: - boring
- Other problems: - promotional hook, and not mentioned in article
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
ltbdl☃ (talk) 08:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Placing a maybe symbol here. The nomination should not be outright rejected since only the hook is contested. Flibirigit (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, we should allow the nominator to respond. Also, to clarify my previous statement, I had not fully evaluated everything and thus hadn't used any official symbols (which would imply a full review). I agree that the hook needs to be workshopped a fair bit to make it less promotional, I do think however, that the hook is cited given that the article in general talks about Splitwise in the context of handling money related conversations. -- Sohom (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Looking at the article, the article tone may be a more significant issue than the hook. The "Functionality" section vaguely reads like an advertisement, which is probably not the intention but it could still benefit from a rewrite. The "History" section might not meet WP:Proseline and so probably needs revision. The issues aren't insurmountable, but they do need to be addressed for the nomination to pass. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, we should allow the nominator to respond. Also, to clarify my previous statement, I had not fully evaluated everything and thus hadn't used any official symbols (which would imply a full review). I agree that the hook needs to be workshopped a fair bit to make it less promotional, I do think however, that the hook is cited given that the article in general talks about Splitwise in the context of handling money related conversations. -- Sohom (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
