Template:Did you know nominations/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)

  @Bsoyka, can you un-proseline the history section? Sohom (talk) 13:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

  Once the above is done, this should be good to go. Sohom (talk) 13:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

this is the opposite of good to go.

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

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)