Template:Did you know nominations/Frinkiac
- 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: promoted by Montanabw(talk) 04:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Frinkiac[edit]
... that some writers have called Frinkiac, a website where users look for screenshots of episodes from The Simpsons by using a quote, a feat in technology?
Created by EditorE (talk). Self-nominated at 15:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC).
Pulled from prep due to hook sourcing issues. The "technological feat" wording is only in the lede, where it is not cited; the closest thing to it that I can find in the body of the article is Some writers called it a high point in technology
, sourced to FN8, but that source is talking about a "cultural event". A new hook will have to be found (I've struck the current one). BlueMoonset (talk) 23:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)- @BlueMoonset: Read the cited AV club source again: "we are privileged to experience a cultural event so extraordinary, it becomes part of our shared heritage. 1969: Man walks on the moon. 1971: Man walks on the moon again. Then, for a long time, nothing happened. Until now, as Frinkiac, the search engine that matches Simpsons quotes with screencaps, introduces an animated GIF feature." A man walking on the moon IS a technological feat, also because it's "so extraordinary, it becomes part of our shared heritage". Technically, achievements like this become "part of our shared heritage". I don't mean to be rude here, but I am gonna have to put the blame on you for not reading the source carefully enough. The Newsweek source that is cited is the next sentence calls Frinkiac the "greatest feat of Internet engineering we've ever seen." Please read more carefully next time so invalid hook strikings like this don't happen. editorEهեইдအ😎 00:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- No, I'm sorry, EditorE. I read it carefully. It's talking about cultural events. They may not have been possible without technology, but it's the cultural impact under discussion. And, frankly, the tone is more than a little facetious—the tongue is being held very firmly in cheek, in my opinion, which is unsurprising given that The Simpsons is involved—or the claim that there's been nothing at all since 1971 wouldn't be advanced. I don't mean to be rude either, but this source just doesn't cut it in the "technological feat" department. The Newsweek source strikes me as the one you're looking for, but you'll need to include the
may be the greatest feat of Internet engineering we've ever seen
quote in the article (and do start with "may be", because the qualification is important). Indeed, that quote could be the basis of the new hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)- @BlueMoonset: (Sighs). OK, Fair enough. Here's a new hook:
- No, I'm sorry, EditorE. I read it carefully. It's talking about cultural events. They may not have been possible without technology, but it's the cultural impact under discussion. And, frankly, the tone is more than a little facetious—the tongue is being held very firmly in cheek, in my opinion, which is unsurprising given that The Simpsons is involved—or the claim that there's been nothing at all since 1971 wouldn't be advanced. I don't mean to be rude either, but this source just doesn't cut it in the "technological feat" department. The Newsweek source strikes me as the one you're looking for, but you'll need to include the
- ALT1 ... that upon its February 2016 launch, the Frinkiac website contained almost three million screenshots of The Simpsons? editorEهեইдအ😎 03:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Hook fact in article and confirmed to source. I made a minor copyedit to ALT1 (moved "site" from immediately before "Frinkiac" to after and changed it to "website"). I didn't see any close paraphrasing or copying (not checked in original review), and it seems neutral enough, though if there are any credible reviews out there that are not enthusiastic about Frinkiac, then at least one should be included at some point. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- I can't find any non-favorable reviews, so including one negative review in the article would be impossible. But thanks for passing. Appreciate the feedback. editorEهեইдအ😎 20:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)