Template:Did you know nominations/Blueberry sauce
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 21:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Blueberry sauce[edit]
A blueberry sauce
- ... that blueberry sauce (example pictured) can be used to prepare blueberry Martinis?
- Reviewed: Dolichoderus pinguis
Created by Northamerica1000 (talk). Self-nominated at 07:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC).
- I'm afraid I have a few issues with this article, I'm going to be a bit of a pain here, sorry! Large portions of the article aren't actually sourced (eg multiple "among others") or if they are, push the limits of original research - lists of ingredients in recipe books cannot source statements such as "add to the sweetness already present". The style of the article, lists of what "may" be included, is unfortunately not compliant with Wikipedia's house style.
That said, I get how hard food articles are to write and I'd love to see this article at the point where it could be on the front page. If you're using cook books as as sources (they're not great), limit yourself to the blurb above any recipe, not to the recipe itself or ingredients. Also, spend a bit of time removing the 15 "may"s in the article. Perhaps focus more on what Blueberry sauce is used for (eg pancakes or lemon based desserts), perhaps a bit about italians use a blueberry sauce with game - the basic recipe (blueberrys in water[1]), then how it could be sweetened.
DYK doesn't have a very high standard, and the article is fine to stick around as it is, but I don't think it's quite good enough for the front page at the moment. I really hope the suggestions help you fix things up a bit, but a the moment, I'm afraid it's a
no. WormTT(talk) 18:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC) - @Worm That Turned:
Working
- I have rewritten content to concisely summarize the content. Check it out.
"The style of the article, lists of what "may" be included, is unfortunately not compliant with Wikipedia's house style"
– I understand what you're saying, but dish variations are commonly denoted in Wikipedia articles. For example, see Halva which denotes many variations. The same goes for articles such as Qurabiya, Rusk and many others. However, I have performed edits to make the content more concise.- Regarding the "among others" phrases in the article, many additional sources provide myriad variations, but I instead kept it more concise by using the phrase "among others". However, I have simply removed these phrases from the article.
- Copy edited to address "mays" in the article.
- I'm a bit concerned about using this source you provided above. It comes across as a gross overgeneralization that classifies all Italian people as having identical tastes and attitudes regarding blueberry sauce. I don't know.
- Some sources (e.g. recipes) are simply used to verify content in the article, rather than to establish topic notability. The article is entirely based upon what reliable sources state.
"the basic recipe (blueberrys in water
– Added content about water/copy edited, using the source you provided.- The article is now below the 1,500 character minimum, so I need time to see if it can be further expanded (based upon source coverage about the topic). North America1000 19:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Looking much better already, good job! If you can get it over 1500 characters I'd be happy to look over the article again in the morning WormTT(talk) 20:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- At 1481 characters, I tweaked it a little and now it's just over the 1500 limit and now meets house style (much better written, well done), article is new enough (was written and put forward on the same day, yesterday), hook is interesting and sourced in article, short enough and meets all other guidelines. Spot check shows no copyright violations. Image meets requirements (free, used in article, shows up at that size). QPQ done. I think we're good
good to go. WormTT(talk) 16:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- At 1481 characters, I tweaked it a little and now it's just over the 1500 limit and now meets house style (much better written, well done), article is new enough (was written and put forward on the same day, yesterday), hook is interesting and sourced in article, short enough and meets all other guidelines. Spot check shows no copyright violations. Image meets requirements (free, used in article, shows up at that size). QPQ done. I think we're good
- I'm afraid I have a few issues with this article, I'm going to be a bit of a pain here, sorry! Large portions of the article aren't actually sourced (eg multiple "among others") or if they are, push the limits of original research - lists of ingredients in recipe books cannot source statements such as "add to the sweetness already present". The style of the article, lists of what "may" be included, is unfortunately not compliant with Wikipedia's house style.
