Talk:In Win Development

Did you know nomination

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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that In Win Development designed a computer case that can be opened up via a smartphone app? Source: "The H-Tower case, which opens and closes via a button or an app" (Einhorn 2016).
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Tenta, Cyprus

Created by DigitalIceAge (talk). Self-nominated at 23:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - n
• Neutral: - n
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: - Unclear
• Other problems: - Currently being considered for deletion

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting: - n
• Other problems: - This isn't interesting - it is largely promotional, and not even recent

QPQ: Done.

Overall: This article seems largely promotional, and the hook isn't interesting OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 09:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Let's wait for the AFD to conclude before failing this nom. Can you please point out the promotional content in the article? I have tried hard to balance all viewpoints on the company and their products (especially in the Reception section) and have tried to not leave out any negative aspects wrt their fiscal performance. DigitalIceAge (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• While I agree with not approving the nom, I don't agree with simply failing it, either. Clearly, this is a case of "more work needed". Personally, I feel like the company & the article both seem pretty boring: For example, there's a ton of info about the historical size of the office space, which I don't see why it would be helpful for any reader. Same with days needed to produce something, or whatever that is supposed to say. The article could be trimmed down a lot, and that might help with the feeling of it being "off". It doesn't have the usual issues with tone – none of the usual advertisement words like "great", "biggest" and so forth, just lots of technical details.

I do find ALT0 to be moderately interesting, while ALT1 is again rather technical. As a side note: I personally prefer if company names aren't shown directly on the front page, so e.g. a company (piped) instead of In Win Development; but this is just my opinion and by no means a DYK rule. --LordPeterII (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, @LordPeterII:, thank you for the in-depth review and criticism (and sorry for this late reply). I've restructured the article, including moving the manufacturing information to its own section, to make the article less of a slog to read. However, I'm not sure what to do about the boring nitty-gritty. I really don't think there's any information to leave out, as I consider the details of manufacturing encyclopedic in demystifying what it takes to manufacture a standard PC case. Perhaps some of it could go to Computer case, but I don't know how applicable the information is to other players in the industry. DigitalIceAge (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

@DigitalIceAge: It looks a bit better after the restructuring. I can follow your reasoning about whether or not to move some technical stuff to computer case, and I'm not sure either. Let's first wait for the AfD to close, but then I think a fresh reviewer might be best, who may see things different yet than myself or Owain.davies. --LordPeterII (talk) 10:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

@LordPeterII: The AFD closed as keep so the nomination can now proceed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, but I actually think I won't review for once, because I'd like another viewpoint on the present content. So, someone else take over please. --LordPeterII (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• After reading the article, I've placed {{Overly detailed}} on the article. Although that's not explicitly listed at WP:DISPUTETAG, {{POV}} is probably applicable as well. In its current state, the article certainly needs "considerable work", so I just can't see this passing review. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I have, begrudgingly, removed the "intricate detail" listed in the {{Overly detailed}} tag from the article, @RoySmith:. As for POV, I don't know what to tell you. I have tried really, really hard to make it as neutral as possible. It seems some people have a tabloidesque conception on how articles on corporations should read these days. Not every company article is destined to have a big scandal or human-interest stories behind them. Some like this are just going to be simple and boring. (Not that some interesting elements can't be DYK-hook-worthy.) I have had numerous promotions under my belt of computer companies just like this (see DTK Computer, Advanced Logic Research, Canon Computer Systems, Monorail Inc.). I'm not seeing a huge difference between those and this one for In Win—except that In Win is still in business. DigitalIceAge (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@RoySmith: I'd maybe have given a in this case. As DigitalIceAge has pointed out, they have had several similar articles passed, and I believe them that they are a "tech enthusiast" who has little reason to breach WP:NPOV. Can you point out specific places in the article that would sound POV to you, or which remain overly detailed? NPOV is a requirement at DYK, but I believe we should give people a chance at fixing them if it's not obviously an attempt at (self-)promotion. –LordPickleII (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm confused. You said you didn't want to continue the review because you wanted another viewpoint. And then... you didn't like the other viewpoint you got? In any case, the problem with promotional style was pointed out in the original review back on August 8. So they had almost a month to work fixing it. Not to mention that "they had other submissions accepted" has absolutely no bearing on whether this one should be accepted. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I asked about the supposed POV issues then and in the leadup to the AFD and got no feedback in return. Tried fixing it anyway. I can't read minds. DigitalIceAge (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Yes, maybe that was a bit short-sighted of me. But I meant fresh view insofar as someone who could point out errors better than myself, who had participated in the AfD and stuff. And I can totally respect your opinion, even that you wouldn't accept it; but could you anyway point out what specifically you find is wrong? It's just not as helpful to put templates and not much more. If DigitalIceAge is actually unwilling or unable to fix the issues, then it can still fail; but consider giving them a chance. The argument about the other submission is only meant to highlight that POV isn't an editor issue here, and they may have trouble seeing why or where this article requires work, when the others didn't. Again, I'm not saying your assessment is wrong, just that it's hard to work with if the nominator is willing. This is the same for the original review, which pointed out general concerns, but no hints on how to potentially fix them. –LordPickleII (talk) 23:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I really don't want to answer "what specifically needs to be fixed", because that would imply that if those particular things were fixed, then it would pass review. The problem is deeper than that. The whole piece is low-level detail which doesn't really say anything about the company in general. In my mind, this is more of a WP:TNT than "just fix x, y, and z". At this point, I'm going to respectfully suggest that you let this be and we can both move on to other more useful things. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@RoySmith: That's unfortunate, but if this is your final opinion on the article I guess nothing can be done otherwise. Sorry to have bothered you again. –LordPickleII (talk) 23:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

"The problem is deeper than that. The whole piece is low-level detail which doesn't really say anything about the company in general." What? "In my mind, this is more of a WP:TNT than 'just fix x, y, and z'" LOL what??? It's a computer case manufacturer that manufactures computer cases. Anything else is just an expansion of that fact. All the complaints about promotional content so far have been intangible and pretty much boil down to "I don't like it". There's no rule that articles on active businesses can't run on DYK. I didn't write this to pimp their products; I write about what I write about for fun. DigitalIceAge (talk) 00:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Coming here due to a request for a second look. For what it's worth, "low-level detail which doesn't really say anything about the company in general" can be interpreted as being under one of the supplementary guidelines. Specifically, the one saying that reviews can fail a nomination if the article does not give an adequate enough overview about the company. As for the article itself, most of the advert-like tone has been addressed. However, there are still some traces of it left: for example "80 strong", which I'm aware is technically correct, but using "[number] strong" when referring to the number of people involved is weird for an encyclopedia article as you usually see such wording in press releases or other promotional material. I don't think I'm in the position to do a new review of the article, except that I feel that the article seems light on details between what happened between 1985 and 2004. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: That strong part was indeed something I noticed as well; although as you pointed out, it's technically correct, it just can also be interpreted as promotional. In any case it was likely very helpful for DigitalIceAge to have such an issue pointed out; the refusal to do so in some reviews above I found to be quite irritating.

As for it breaching a supplementary rule, I'm not convinced. D7 seems the one applicable (if I understand correctly), which states: Articles that fail to deal adequately with the topic are also likely to be rejected. For example, an article about a book that fails to summarize the book's contents, but contains only a bio of the author and some critics' views, is likely to be rejected as insufficiently comprehensive. At least with the example given, it sounds like the opposite of the issue at hand: A book article that is missing important parts like its plot is, in my opinion, clearly worse than a book article that contains excessive detail e.g. on plot and characters, but also all necessary parts. Such issues are not to be dismissed, but I would rather see them as preventing a GA pass. I can see that D13 applies, which states To some extent, DYK approval is a subjective process and Just because an unfamiliar criterion is not listed does not mean a nomination cannot be disqualified. But we must then accept that those were subjective decisions, which are not perfectly obvious and could be debated. I haven't been around for very long, but I don't think I have seen "excessive detail" and "minor promotional wording" as blocking reasons before. As issues, yes, just not as "unsolvable". –LordPickleII (talk) 09:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can recall, there have been a few nominations that were held back (not failed) due to the "incomplete article" guideline. They weren't failed, but the nominations were put on hold until the articles were expanded further. I can't remember the exact article, but I think it once happened to a book DYK nomination that was mostly about the plot and not much else. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Putting such noms at hold sound totally reasonable to me. I mean, I can see that this nom may need some work, too. Failing it completely is what irritates me. Anyway, I'm also not in a position to review, and will step out of this discussion now.

New review still requested. –LordPickleII (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: I have found a couple of sources about the company early in its existence to expand the History section. It seems the company came of age around the turn of the millennium though. DigitalIceAge (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5:, DigitalIceAge has expanded the article some, cut some of the trite material. It's still boring, and the hooks haven't gotten more exciting, but it's passable. Excitement isn't really a thing we can measure anyway, though I think some of us can judge it pretty well. I think this can be passed. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

The article looks improved, although as I mentioned earlier I don't think I'm properly equipped to review this nomination. For what it's worth I do think the original hook (the one about the app) is unusual if not interesting. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Narutolovehinata5, I've looked at a bunch of those articles and this one seems no worse than the others--but I did not give it an in-depth review; I assume User:LordPeterII did that. I'm looking at it purely from the reader's perspective, and perhaps LordPeter can have another look to see if the material that has been added or tweaked is properly verified. I also agree with you on the hook. Drmies (talk) 14:28, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

• @Drmies: LordPeterII has said on my talk page he wants to abstain from giving the GTG to this article for reasons of impartiality. Here's a couple more "interesting" (knock on wood) hooks for your consideration:
  • ALT2: ... that In Win Development released a Gundam-inspired computer case in 2008?
  • ALT3: ... that some of In Win's computer cases put the motherboard on a tray?

DigitalIceAge (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I think ALT2 is a decent hook although I think ALT0 is still the best option. ALT3 might be too technical for general readers. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Narutolovehinata5, I agree: the first hook is the best. I do not have the time to do a thorough review right now--or today, or maybe this weekend. Sorry, Drmies (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• @Drmies: Is this ready for a new review? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Drmies hasn't responded so a new reviewer is probably needed here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

• Let's see here. The article is new/long enough, reliable sources are used, there are no instances of close paraphrasing, review is done, image has appropriate tags, and ALT0 is cited and very interesting. The other hooks were more technical and thereby not suitable for the mainpage. This article is complicated to complete given that it is an existing company and some of the sources may be promotion in nature (this is something we deal with often in company articles), but our editor did a great job of sticking to the facts and describing accomplishments in a neutral, encyclopedic manner. I'm comfortable promotion it to the main page. MX (✉ • ✎) 17:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)