Template:Did you know nominations/ORCA (computer system)

ORCA (computer system)

 * ... that the "get out the vote" system used by Mitt Romney in the 2012 United States presidential election has been described as "a clusterf**k of biblical proportions"?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Dawda Leigh

Created/expanded by Prioryman (talk), Enric Naval (talk). Nominated by Prioryman (talk) at 22:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg The article is long enough, new enough etc. All referencing okay. However got a question about the hook. It's a great quote but it's sourced to a random person on twitter. It's quoted by a tech blog, but it's still a comment on twitter. Is this good enough? Secretlondon (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I should think it's okay. The cited fact is literally true: it was indeed described that way. I'm not sure it's correct to describe The Verge as a tech blog though, Wikipedia's own article on it calls it a news website, and it clearly has a conventional editorial structure. Prioryman (talk) 08:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I see several problems with this article and this hook and I do not think it should go up on the main page as it is.
 * I think the article should be located at Orca (computer system), i.e., not all caps, and that "Orca" is how the system should be referred to within the article, not "ORCA". Looking at the two primary documents in 'External links', one uses all caps and the other doesn't, so that isn't determinative.  More sources I've seen use "Orca" than "ORCA". And most fundamentally, the name is not an acronym, but instead a direct and deliberate reference to the animal species, which means "Orca" is the correct usage.
 * I'm not convinced by the fair use rationale for the inclusion of File:ORCA application display.jpg in the article. The source is a photocopied document on docstoc.com, with no indication of how it got there.  The fair use rationale says it is "promotional material issued by Mitt Romney 2012 campaign", but Orca was not a consumer product and this document was only released to campaign workers and volunteers.  Similarly, the boilerplate text for the rationale says that it was "released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media", which I do not believe to be the case here.
 * The lead section is a little too short for an article of this length
 * The last sentence of the lead cherry-picks the two wildest quotes from the article and is thus skewed towards the viewpoint that Orca was a complete disaster, and does not represent the viewpoints that while it had troubles, it did not play a significant role in how the election turned out. Everybody loves computer system scapegoats, and it's a lot easier to blame something like this than to acknowledge that the other candidate is superior to your own in terms of attracting voters.
 * The Breitbart/Pollak suggestion that Orca's failures could have cost the election has no countervailing viewpoint in the article, and I'm sure somewhere there's somebody who's taken a dispassionate look at this and concluded that no such scenario is reasonable.
 * The proposed hook is pretty much the most extreme one that could be pulled from the article, comes not from any official or software designer but instead some volunteer on Twitter, and is nonsensical to boot, given that "clusterfuck" is a very recent term (last few decades) that does not, as far as I know, describe anything that happened in the Bible.
 * In sum, I do not think the article should be approved for DYK until these items are resolved. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * if te quote is from a non-notabe person then it shouldnt be quoted on WP as this is not a list of quotes. However, a notable person's twitter account is fineLihaas (talk) 11:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * They don't seem notable - https://twitter.com/GMFuller1971 Secretlondon (talk) 18:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll have a go at reworking the article to take account of these objections. Prioryman (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I see some significant edits on December 2. I'm guessing there are more to come, or Prioryman would have posted here before now. Any idea how soon this will be ready for a new review? BlueMoonset (talk) 06:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In reply to Wasted Time R's comments:
 * The capitalisation appears in the original publicity material issued by the Romney campaign and in the application itself (see File:ORCA application display.jpg), so there's no doubt that it's correct.
 * I still disagree. This instructions document from the Romney campaign generally does not use all caps.  Furthermore, MOS:CAPS starts with a fundamental WP style point: "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization."  See MOS:ALLCAPS in particular.  Thus, even though the news magazine likes to refer to itself as TIME (see here for example), we locate the article at Time (magazine) and refer to it as Time.  Thus, even though the U.S. professional golf circuit likes to refer to its as the PGA TOUR (see here for example), we locate the article at PGA Tour and refer to it as that.  Since we are not talking about an acronym here, all caps should not be used; this article should be located at Orca (computer system) and the application should be referred to as "Orca".  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The source of the screenshot image is a file uploaded by Amanda Terkel of the Huffington Post for this pre-election story, in which the document is embedded. It's rather clearly fair use, both in the HuffPost and here.
 * I still question this too. HuffPo may have very different concepts of copyright and fair use than WP does; as I'm sure you know, we have some of the most restrictive image policies around.  My points above about the fair use rationale still apply.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair point; I've amended the lead to reflect this.
 * Lead length is okay now.
 * I've expanded the lead section.
 * Lead is more balanced now. But "get out the vote" should be linked in it.
 * I've added commentary from a couple of political scientists on the likely impact of the system's failure.
 * This aspect stills seems a little threadbare and could use more expansion. The sentence "While political scientists doubted ..." isn't even sourced. The fact remains that sophisticated polling analyses (e.g. FiveThirtyEight) had Romney losing going into election day, and indeed he lost.  The only people surprised were the Romney camp themselves.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest the following alternative hook. Prioryman (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ALT1: that the "get out the vote" system used by Mitt Romney in the 2012 United States presidential election crashed repeatedly on election day, depriving his campaign of vital last-minute information?
 * I think the hook should mention Orca itself, since the name is pretty well known by now. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the hook should mention Orca itself, since the name is pretty well known by now. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg It's disgusting that this has been sitting here for two weeks because of a hook issue. The article looks more or less ready for GAC. ALT1 is fine, ORCA can be substituted editorially. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * For the record, it wasn't sitting here because of a hook issue, but because I thought the article was located at the wrong name and contained an image that was not legitimately fair use. I also think the article is a bit slanted towards the viewpoint that Orca's problems had a big effect on the election.  If the article was at GAN, I'd be making the same points.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The name is not part of the DYK criteria, and what I've read did not seem overly biased (although for such a charged topic some bias will be found by somebody). An image of the interface would probably be FU IMHO, but that's neither here nor there for DYK. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This gets to the narrow vs broad schools of DYK reviewing ... but you're the admin, if you're okay with it then I'm okay with it. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)