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 07:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Lapse (social network)

• ... that Lapse, a social media app, reached #1 on the App Store by requiring prospective users to invite their friends? Source: Perez, Sarah Photo-sharing app Lapse hits top of the App Store by forcing you to invite your friends. TechCrunch. "Forget invite-only social apps, Lapse is testing a new technique to acquire its users: It forces you to invite your friends in order to get in."
  • Reviewed:

Created by I'm tla (talk). Self-nominated at 08:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Lapse (social network); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Article length borders on the weak side and, more importantly, the hook fact is actually missing from the article itself. Shouldn't be a long way away from being good to go though! Cheers, KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 16:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• @I'm tla: Please respond to the above. Z1720 (talk) 02:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• @Kingoflettuce: I've added the hook paraphrased in the 2023 re-release section. I'm still doing research on thinking about expansion, but made sure the lede meets requirements. TLA^tlak 07:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kingoflettuce: Have all of the concerns been resolved? If not, what else needs to be done? Z1720 (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

My bad, totally missed the ping. The hook is still a little iffy though. Granted that's what the source suggests, but technically the full hook fact is not in the article. What is currently explained in the article is how one is "forced" into inviting one's friends (perhaps the hook should make that clear too), but that does not necessarily lead to an app topping the charts. Just tighten the hook and we should be good to go! Cheers, KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 16:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@I'm tla: Please address the above. Z1720 (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kingoflettuce: Revised, would it work? TLA^tlak 15:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

It's still not clear in the article itself that forced invitations were what led to its becoming #1 23:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Is it fine now? Sorry – this is my first DYK. TLA^tlak 10:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, I think this should work. Sorry for being a stickler, and well done on your first nomination. Plenty more to come and rest assured they won't all be so long drawn out! Cheers, KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 07:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet, so while the article is not eligible for WP:G5 speedy deletion, it would still be a good idea to check it over for possible errors. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd want to see a good reason as to what WP:TECHCRUNCH is doing in there.--Launchballer 08:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah... The plot thickens... Thanks for bringing it up LB, I assumed Techcrunch was passable. Much more inclined to turn this down once again: is there really nothing in the DYK criteria about socked nominations? KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 13:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

There certainly should be, and I'm inclined to boldly add something to the guidelines.--Launchballer 15:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why there would be a need. If the article can run, or if someone else is willing to improve it, it can run; if it is eligible for G5, it should be deleted. No need for any DYKCRIT additions. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

There has long been the feeling that socks should not benefit by getting articles through GAN or DYK while violating the rules and norms of Wikipedia, and I can see that being the case here. (I don't believe it's ever been felt necessary to specify anything in the DYK rules.) In any event, there seem to be issues with the article above and additionally there's a (not-mentioned) bare URL, also against DYK regs. Unless someone is willing to adopt this article as their own, fix it, and shepherd it through the DYK process, it should be closed. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)