Talk:Daylio

= Feedback welcome =

Untitled
A few things that might need to changed:
 * The citation with the article: http://sersc.org/journals/index.php/IJAST/article/view/16993 is tagged with a predatory journal warning. Should I not use that source in this page?
 * The citation with the article: https://ir.library.illinoisstate.edu/rsp_urs/95/ only has the abstract publicly available. Would it be possible to get full access to it? The page indicates that this is a poster, so that may be the reason. User:LibrarianBTeam
 * I'm hoping to get an image of the app's logo to include in the info box. I recently had uploaded an image of the logo from https://daylio.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/logo-1.png to use while I was editing in sandbox mode, but it was removed. It was originally located here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload?wpDestFile=Daylio_logo.png User:Explicit

-Ortiz.da (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2021 and 17 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ortiz.da.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTADVERT and WP:MEDRS issues
I'm ordinarily hesitant to nominate WikiEdu articles for deletion, though I find myself close nominating this one for deletion. As it currently stands, the article reads almost like an advertisement of the product that contains a list of product features and options, and has sourcing issues when it uses non-MEDRS sources for medical claims. In general, Wikipedia strives to use independent sources to describe products that we include, and I'm seeing a lot of references to primary sources and descriptions put out by the company as a basis for the article in its current state. This alone merits cleanup, which I'm going to try to do. I'm writing here before I make changes to the article as a courtesy to the Wikiedu participants so that they understand the basis for what I'm about to do. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

This article is well constructed and I feel that it deserves a place here. However as the above user noted. I would suggest cutting down on the descriptive language and stick to facts. Overall, a solid start to the article just needs to be cleaned up! Dannyryan33 (talk) 02:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the feedback Dannyryan33, and thank you for the cleanup+feedback Mikehawk10. After the changes you have made, do you think the article should still be nominated for deletion? Maybe it would be a good idea to consolidate the features section into a single, shorter paragraph to make the article less like an advertisement?-Ortiz.da (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)