Talk:Bacon Explosion

Notability / recentism

The subject has a full-length article in the New York Times, and NYT article is primarily about the amount of interest generated in the topic, including secondary coverage. It neatly fits into the general notability guideline as such. Bongomatic 20:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Picture

• http://www.bbqaddicts.com/bacon-explosion.html

Should we add one of the images from there onto this article? Gune (talk) 07:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you think a fair use rationale applies, or that this has been licensed in a way consistent with WP policy? I sent an e-mail to BBQ Addicts asking them to release one of the pix into PD or license it using CC / GFDL, but haven't heard back yet. Bongomatic 08:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course I think it applies. Gune (talk) 09:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Really? What about criterion (1) of WP:FUC? Couldn't Drmies just make one and shoot it? Bongomatic 09:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Bongo, are you crazy?? Although...5000 calories...500 grams of fat...that's not so bad...if I don't eat it with too much mayonnaise... You know what, I'll give it some thought! Drmies (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone ever asked thw question how many calories and grams of fat are in one serving? Sure, the whole dish has 5000 calories, but who is going to eat that? A half-gallon of ice cream probably has about the same, but most people only eat one bowl at a time.--Dspillmann (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)dspillmann

This isn't a one per person dish? :) I wonder what sides are commonly served with an Explosion of this type? Would it pair well with vegetables? potatoes? It seems more context is needed, but perhaps more time is needed to establish servign protocols. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It's covered by no free equivalent. Gune (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually it is (the one uploaded is free use). And anyway, WP:FUC criterion number one is where "no free equivalent is available, or could be created" (emphasis added). Given the widespread availability of bacon, sausage, and BBQs / smokers, it is impossible to successfully argue that no equivalent could be created. Bongomatic 18:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

True originators

An anonymous editor added an unreferenced claim that two specific individuals had invented the dish. I vaguely recall seeing something indicating that the idea may not have originated with the bloggers who popularized and named the dish, but can't recall the reference–anyone? Bongomatic 00:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, here it is, from the NYT article:

Some have claimed that the Bacon Explosion is derivative. A writer known as the Headless Blogger posted a similar roll of sausage and bacon in mid-December. Mr. Chronister and Mr. Day do not claim to have invented the concept.

Looking into it further now. Bongomatic 00:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

And for some reason, an "anonymous" editor in what Geolocate says is Olathe, Kansas, keeps deleting this referenced section and adding multiple links to the BBQ Addicts blog. I've added a single link to the external links section as it's a legitimate site for such a link from this article but it should not be repeatedly woven into the text of the article. - Dravecky (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Subjective judgments of taste

While it is true that judgments of taste are subjective, it does not follow that critical reception of things that are evaluated by reference to taste are not encyclopedic. Reviews of all sorts of topics covered in this and other encyclopedias are noted in articles. Headless Blogger's opinion, however, would appear to be a COI. If a noted food critic or chef covers this dish, his/her subjective opinion would be notable and ought to be included. Bongomatic 21:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. momoricks (make my day) 22:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Bacon Explosion → Bacon explosion – Not a proper noun, should be lowercased per WP:CAPS. 81.142.107.230 (talk) 13:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the reliable sources (including The New York Times) almost all capitalize Bacon Explosion in all instances. It's our article that needs copyediting, not the article title. - Dravecky (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I am not sure what to think of food names being proper nouns. There is precedent for it - look for example at these names of cocktails as proper nouns. IBA Official Cocktail Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bacon Explosion/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 05:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Nominator: ChrisGualtieri (talk)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have my full review up shortly. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 05:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

1: Well-written

• a. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
• b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

WP:LEAD:

Check for WP:LEAD: Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  Done Check for Citations (WP:LEADCITE):  Done Check for Introductory text:  Done Lead should provide an accessible overview with Relative emphasis. The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the body. Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO):  Done Major Point 1: History and origin "It caused an Internet sensation … meal ideas in the world." (not a concise summary of the History and origin section, points like The Daily Telegraph quote can be moved to the body and summarized in the lead) Major Point 2: Preparation "" (not in the lead) Major Point 3: Recognition "The Bacon Explosion's creators … won at the 2013 Blue Ribbon Bacon Festival." (not a concise summary of the Recognition section) Check for Relative emphasis:  Done Major Point 1: History and origin "It caused an Internet sensation … meal ideas in the world." (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body) Major Point 2: Preparation "" (not in the lead, the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body) Major Point 3: Recognition "The Bacon Explosion's creators … won at the 2013 Blue Ribbon Bacon Festival." (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body) Check for Opening paragraph (MOS:BEGIN):  Done Check for First sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE):  Done A bacon explosion is a pork dish that consists of bacon wrapped around a filling of spiced sausage and crumbled bacon. Definition and notability should be in the first sentence (WP:BETTER). As per WP:LEADSENTENCE, The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?". I think "most popular" is notability and should be incorporated in some form in the first sentence. Check for Format of the first sentence (MOS:BOLDTITLE):  Done Check for Proper names and titles:  Done Check for Abbreviations and synonyms (MOS:BOLDSYN): None Check for Foreign language (MOS:FORLANG): None Check for Pronunciation: None Check for Contextual links (MOS:CONTEXTLINK):  Done Check for Biographies: NA Check for Organisms: NA Check for Biographies of living persons: NA Check for Alternative names (MOS:LEADALT):  Done Check for Non-English titles: Check for Usage in first sentence: Check for Separate section usage: Check for Length (WP:LEADLENGTH):  Done Check for Clutter (WP:LEADCLUTTER): None

WP:LAYOUT:

Done Check for WP:LAYOUT:  Done Check for Body sections: WP:BODY, MOS:BODY.  Done Check for Headings and sections:  Done Use a different heading for section History and origin. This section hardly has anything before December 2008 so the History is not appropriate. I recommend Origin. Use a different heading for section Recognition. This section refers to "obesity" aspect also. I’d recommend a more neutral Reception. Check for Section templates and summary style:  Done Check for Paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS):  Done Paragraphs should be short enough to be readable, but long enough to develop an idea. (WP:BETTER) Fix short paragraphs in the Preparation section. Check for Standard appendices and footers (MOS:APPENDIX):  Done Check for Order of sections (WP:ORDER):  Done Check for Works or publications:  Done Check for See also section (MOS:SEEALSO):  Done Check for Notes and references (WP:FNNR):  Done Check for Further reading (WP:FURTHER): None Check for External links (WP:LAYOUTEL):  Done Check for Links to sister projects:  Done Check for Navigation templates:  Done Check for Formatting:  Done Check for Images (WP:LAYIM):  Done Check for Links:  Done Check for Horizontal rule (WP:LINE):  Done

WP:WTW:

Done Check for WP:WTW:  Done Check for Words that may introduce bias:  Done Check for Puffery (WP:PEA):  Done Check for Contentious labels (WP:LABEL):  Done Check for Unsupported attributions (WP:WEASEL):  Done Check for Expressions of doubt (WP:ALLEGED):  Done Check for Editorializing (MOS:OPED):  Done Check for Synonyms for said (WP:SAY):  Done Fix "The Daily Telegraph noted that the … " in the lead. What follows is the interpretation, so a verb like "assessed" or "opined". Fix "… while another noted that it … " in the Recognition. What follows is the interpretation, so a verb like "assessed" or "opined". Check for Expressions that lack precision:  Done Check for Euphemisms (WP:EUPHEMISM):  Done Check for Clichés and idioms (WP:IDIOM):  Done Check for Relative time references (WP:REALTIME):  Done Check for Neologisms (WP:PEA): None Check for Offensive material (WP:F***):  Done Check for WP:MOSFICT: (NA) Check for Real-world perspective (WP:Real world):  Done Check for Primary and secondary information (WP:PASI):  Done Check for Contextual presentation (MOS:PLOT):  Done

WP:EMBED:
None Prose is preferred over list (WP:PROSE): Check for Tables (MOS:TABLES):

2: Verifiable with no original research

• a. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes
• b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: excellent (Thorough check on Google. Cross-checked with other GA)

WP:RS:

Done Check for WP:RS:  Done Cross-checked with other GA: Baconnaise Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING): (not contentious)  Done Is it contentious?: No Does the ref indeed support the material?: Check for the author (WP:RSVETTING):  Done Who is the author?: Darlin, Damon (The New York Times) Singh, Anita (The Daily Telegraph) Day, Jason (BBQ Addicts) Taylor, Greg (Stay Cut) (Express) van der Plas, Caroline (Meat & Meal) Abouhalkah, Yael T. (The Kansas City Star) Nista, Monica; Cox, Lauren (ABC News) Bandyk, Matthew (U.S. News & World Report) (Eat Me Daily) Chronister, Aaron (BBQ Addicts) Day, Jason (BBQ Addicts) Bender, Jonathan (Eat Like a Man) (Blue Ribbon Bacon Festival) Does the author have a Wikipedia article?: What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?: What else has the author published?: Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?: Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING):  Done The New York Times The Daily Telegraph BBQ Addicts Stay Cut Express Meat & Meal The Kansas City Star ABC News U.S. News & World Report Eat Me Daily BBQ Addicts BBQ Addicts Eat Like a Man Blue Ribbon Bacon Festival Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS):

WP:MINREF:

Done Check for inline citations WP:MINREF:  Done Check for Direct quotations:  Done "recipe is most popular on the web" and that the "5,000 calorie barbeque dish has become one of the most popular meal ideas in the world."[2] (Random check on source 2, successful, "Bacon Explosion recipe is most popular on the web The Bacon Explosion - a recipe for a 5,000 calorie barbeque dish - has become one of the most popular meal ideas in the world after being posted in a blog.") "They came up with the delicacy after being challenged on Twitter to create the ultimate bacon recipe."[2] "Why Americans are fat" … .[7][8] "landed a six-figure book deal"… .[10] Check for Likely to be challenged:  Done Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP): NA

• c. No original research:  Done

WP:NOR:
Done Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY):  Done Check for synthesis (WP:SYN):  Done Check for original images (WP:OI):  Done

3: Broad in its coverage

a. Major aspects:

Done (Thorough check on Google in parallel with criteria 2. Cross-checked with other GA: Baconnaise) Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources: Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS: Check for Out of scope: Check for The range of material that belongs in the article: Check for All material that is notable is covered: Check for All material that is referenced is covered: Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered: Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge: Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC):

b. Focused:
Done Check for Readability issues (WP:LENGTH): Check for Article size (WP:TOO LONG!):

4: Neutral

WP:NPOV:

Done 4. Fair representation without bias:  Done Check for POV (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING):  Done Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE):  Done Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE):  Done Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS):  Done Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID):  Done Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL):  Done Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE):  Done Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  Done Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI): None Check for Religion (WP:RNPOV): None

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes

6: Images  Done (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license) & (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license)

Images:

Done 6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  Done Check for copyright tags (WP:TAGS):  Done Image 1 (Bacon Explosion.jpg): This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license. This version permits free use, including commercial use. Image 2 (Bacon Explosion preperation 01.JPG): This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. This version permits free use, including commercial use. Image 3 (Bacon Explosion preperation 02.JPG): This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. This version permits free use, including commercial use. Image 4 (Bacon Explosion preperation 03.JPG): This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. This version permits free use, including commercial use. Image 5 (Bacon Explosion finished.JPG): This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. This version permits free use, including commercial use. Check for copyright status:  Done Image 1 (Bacon Explosion.jpg): Free. Image 2 (Bacon Explosion preperation 01.JPG): Free. Image 3 (Bacon Explosion preperation 02.JPG): Free. Image 4 (Bacon Explosion preperation 03.JPG): Free. Image 5 (Bacon Explosion finished.JPG): Free. Check for non-free content (WP:NFC): None Check for valid fair use rationales (WP:FUR): NA 6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  Done Check for image relevance (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE):  Done Image 1 (Bacon Explosion.jpg): Relevant. Image 2 (Bacon Explosion preperation 01.JPG): Relevant. Image 3 (Bacon Explosion preperation 02.JPG): Relevant. Image 4 (Bacon Explosion preperation 03.JPG): Relevant. Image 5 (Bacon Explosion finished.JPG): Relevant. Check for Images for the lead (WP:LEADIMAGE):  Done Image 1 (Bacon Explosion.jpg): Appropriate & Representative Check for suitable captions (WP:CAPTION):  Done Caption 1: "A complete bacon explosion dish" succinct and informative Caption 2: "The woven bacon base" succinct and informative Caption 3: "The bacon explosion meat sauced and ready for rolling" succinct and informative Caption 4: "The bacon explosion rolled and seasoned prior to cooking" succinct and informative Caption 5: "The bacon explosion served by candlelight" succinct and informative

As per the above checklist, the issues identified are:

• The lead needs to be rewritten. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the body.
• Fix layout and WTW.
• Is this link " http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/can-bacon-be-part-of-a-healthy-diet" relevant to the article scope?

This article is a very promising GA nominee. I’m glad to see your work here. All the best, --Seabuckthorn ♥ 09:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello! To address part of the second bullet (WTW), I changed the two instances of "noted" to "assessed" and "asserted," respectively. (Megatron Omega (talk) 06:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC))

I worked on the lead and hopefully resolved the issue by covering the preparation and focusing more less on the details of the awards. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Good. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 17:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, everything looks good now. Passing the article to GA status. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 17:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Caps in title?

Hey @ChrisGualtieri:, is Bacon Explosion a proper noun? It's listed as both Bacon Explosion and bacon explosion in the article and should probably be one or the other for consistency's sake. Thanks for your thoughts, BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 19:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Yep, its a proper noun so has all been unified now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

International

The claim that this is anything other than a purely American dish seems very dubious. I'm a 59 year old Brit interested in food and cooking, and I'd never heard of it before stumbling on this article. The Daily Telegraph article quoted in support of the international claim is of the "here's another crazy food that obese Americans eat" variety. I think the article needs better refs if the claim is to be sustained, and I suspect none exist. --Ef80 (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I've removed it as being an unsourced statement with no really viable sources located. Hopefully this changes in the future. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)