Talk:WhopperCoin

{{GA|20:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)|topic=Computing and engineering|page=1|oldid=1015324688}}

{{Old peer review|ID=993797322|reviewedname=WhopperCoin|date=19 December 2020|archive=1}}

{{DYK talk|12 January|2021|entry= ... that WhopperCoin attempted to turn a burger into an "investment vehicle"?|nompage=Template:Did you know nominations/WhopperCoin}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|

}}

Did you know nomination

Sourcing

Wikipedia crypto articles don't accept cryptocurrency sites as sources - they're considered utterly untrustworthy sources. We need to stick to reliable sources. This would be enough to scupper a DYK. That's why I removed them - David Gerard (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

:I already responded to the comment above on the DYK nomination, but I'll go into a little more depth here: while I'm grateful for a second set of eyes on sourcing (which was why I posted this on your talk page), some of the content you removed was actually supported by multiple sources. For example, {{tq|Waves ran a blockchain ledger (a distributed record of transactions resistant to tampering or alteration), which tracked ownership of WhopperCoin and recorded transactions}} was mentioned not only in the Waves press release, but in the BBC, CNBC and CNN articles as well. I agree that I made an oversight in having inline refs that only rested on the unreliable source -- I was trying to avoid cluttering up the text, but I don't think any of the stuff in the article right now is uncited. jp×g 19:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

::There's no reason to still use bitcoin.com as a source - it's simply not an RS - David Gerard (talk) 12:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

:::A little bit belated, but thanks for helping out with the sourcing issues here, in the DYK nom, and in the peer review. Everything seems to be fine now (and future coverage is unlikely) so I think this is probably going to be the stable version of this article for a while. Hats off! jp×g 23:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)