Talk:Dating app

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Smasseroli.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Peer reviews
Hello! Below is my peer review:

What does the article (or section) do well?

I think you have picked an interesting topic and have found good data on it that shows how trends have changed. I really liked the "effects on data" and "pros and cons" section and felt that this added great deal to the article. I also liked the section that described tinder because I feel like it provides some insight on how new dating apps work for someone who may not be familiar with them.

What changes would you suggest overall?

I believe you are writing a new page since I couldn’t find a Wikipedia article specifically about online dating applications. However, there is a page for online dating service. After looking at your “User by Demographic Group” section I would just be wary of overlap or possibly make this article a subsection of that page. I suggest this because in this section you use data from years before the smartphone and apps really existed (original iphone released in 2007). Instead of doing that you could possibly just make it clear that data in 2016 probably includes apps and dating website (unless it specifies only apps) while data from before 2007 probably didn’t include any apps and was mainly dating websites.

A similar issue seems to come up in the “other popular applications” and “effects on dating” section as well. It may be useful to mention some are dating websites that have made a mobile app for convenience while others were developed as mobile apps.

I might also put the “how dating apps started” section before “user by demographic” section since this seems more like the history of it, which I would expect to find first.

What is the most important thing that the author could do to improve his/her contribution?

There are small language errors or missing words that can be a little distracting. I would try to just clean up the article just a bit. Just as an example, in your “Other popular applications” sections you say “the research results indicated that only 11 apps scored 50 or greater” but do not say out of what rating possible. Another small thing in the same section is it says “conducted a research” instead of conducted a research study. I don’t mean to pick on specifics, but just wanted to give examples of things that I found distracting while reading.

'''Did you learn anything from your classmate's work that could be applicable to your own? If so, let him/her know!'''

My subject was on corporate governance so the information isn’t really applicable to my topic. I did learn some new things about dating apps, which ones are popular, and rates of usage though!

Hi, this is James from your Advanced Writing class and here are my thoughts:

What does the article (or section) do well?

I think Sofia picked a relevant and fun topic that I would love to learn more about. I liked the pros and cons section and it added more of a personal level to the article. The article was written with no bias and it was very informative in teaching me more about online dating.

What changes would you suggest overall? I think the title names of each section can be changed. "How Dating Apps Started" can be changed to something more simple like "History" or something of that nature, and "Usage of Demographic Group" can be shortened to "Demographics".

What is the most important thing that the author could do to improve his/her contribution? I think maybe a bit more detail under the other dating apps besides Tinder. I understand Tinder is the biggest dating app out there right now, but it may be nice to have a little description for each of the bigger dating apps to get the readers a better feel of the apps.

'''Did you learn anything from your classmate's work that could be applicable to your own? If so, let him/her know!''' I learned how many different subtopics of Online Dating there could be, and to be more open and creative with my topic.

Poor objectivity
Why does this page read like an ad for Tinder? I get that Tinder was one of the first dating apps but the whole article reeks of PR. 32.213.191.91 (talk) 05:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC) snail

Requested move 2 April 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) { {ping&#124;ClydeFranklin }} (t/c) 04:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Online dating application → Dating app – WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME, see for example Hinge (app) or Tinder (app). I know it was brought up at the previous discussion at Talk:Online dating that there is some overlap between this article and that one, as well as Mobile dating, but whether it should be merged would be better off as a separate discussion. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC) Notifying participants of previous discussion. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. This is how they are referred to. No need for the extra verbiage and syllables that sound like they are from 1980. Softlavender (talk) 06:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Incredibly clear common name vs name that absolutely nobody ever uses. No contest per WP:COMMONNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per everyone else. Seems like an obvious move. DFlhb (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.