This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. |
The article is so superficial that it really looks like a "lose weight fast" scam ad. Some questions that should be addressed are:
PhS (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
As of today, I think the article sufficiently explains who is developing it and that the technology is a trade secret, while describing the general strategy. (I'm not an expert in the field.) Fourthark (talk) 01:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
I was trying to improve the wording in the stats section, because it sounds awkwardly German. That section contains the sentence
> In Germany it ranks 276th, with 30% of the site's users concentrated, followed by France, Switzerland, Spain and Italy.
"Concentrated" is very awkward here but I can't fix it because I don't know if it means something different from the later sentence
> As of 12 May 2019, 21.8% of traffic comes from Germany, 17.4% from France, 10% from Spain, 7.9% from Switzerland and 4.1% from Poland.
If the same meaning is intended, the first sentence should be deleted because it is out of date. Fourthark (talk) 01:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
@AngryHarpy: The reception section wording is a remnant from the 2019 article, which was promotional. It quotes positive aspects mentioned by press, while disregarding the articles conclusion. E.g. in the case of Le Monde, concluding that "Google was still a far surperior service", per Connexion translation. More academic sources that thoroughly evaluate the service are needed.
The section also needs restructuring, e.g. the 7 sources used for blind tests contain reviews that can be used throughout the section. Alexa and Similarweb statistics have been deemed un-encyclopedic AFAIK.
Btw the privacy section can probably be removed, original research and primary source. IgelRM (talk) 13:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
I am working for DeepL (just to be very transparent regarding COIs). I have first suggested a long edit on December 3, fixing several errors in the articles, but also trying to improve longer paragraphs. Probably this was a mistake. The edit was reverted two weeks later. Today I tried to only correct three short passages that are clearly wrong. I edited only these three parts, and entered very clear information on why the information was wrong before. Unfortunately my edits have been reverted again, without giving any reason based on the content. How can I correct the wrong information, if everything is reverted right away?
Can someone please have a look at the three little changes I made today, and re-implement them? It is the ambition of Wikipedia that there are no false claims in articles. It would be great if someone could check these three edits and the reasons I gave for the edits. It is about wrong information, and nobody wants false claims to be present in the article. DeepL Repr (talk) 13:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
I received a message on my talk page from 84.247.216.86 that the recently added part about Frahlinger is false. Given that was based on quoted UEPO.de paragraph below (also mentioned by Gruenderszene.de), it is unclear which part. My intention was to add background about the resignation; however looking back at this, it appears more in speculation WP:Original research territory. Since there appear to be ethical considerations and the topic is now noted on the article's talk page with this comment, I have decided to remove this part from the article.
Dass Frahling sich eher als Wissenschaftler versteht, der lieber in Ruhe seinen Forschungen nachgeht als sich mit der Hektik des Tagesgeschäfts herumzuschlagen, konnte man im vergangenen Jahr bereits ahnen, als er nicht nur UEPO.de bat, sämtliche Fotos von ihm aus früheren Artikeln zu entfernen. IgelRM (talk) 13:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
It has been proposed in this section that DeepL Translator be renamed and moved to DeepL. A bot will list this discussion on requested moves' current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use ((subst:requested move)) . Do not use ((requested move/dated)) directly. |
DeepL Translator → DeepL – DeepL is emerging as more than just a Translator, with their new Write page. Also, while the main page redirects to the Translator page, the company itself is not called DeepL Translator but just DeepL. Thus the Wikipedia page should be called DeepL with DeepL Translator redirecting to DeepL. Coldbolt (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)