- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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 Allen3 talk 23:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Lemon Souffle
edit- ... that Lord Carnarvon named the 1993 European filly champion after one of his wife's recipes?
- ALT1 ... that Lord Carnarvon named the 1993 European filly champion after one of his wife's favourite recipes?
- Reviewed: John Mennie
Created/expanded by Tigerboy1966 (talk). Nominated by Frank (talk) at 23:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
| Format | Citation | Neutrality | Interest |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crisco 1492 (talk) | Crisco 1492 (talk) | Crisco 1492 (talk) | Crisco 1492 (talk) |
| Length | Newness | Adequate citations |
Formatted citations |
Reliable sources |
Neutrality | Plagiarism |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crisco 1492 (talk) | Crisco 1492 (talk) | Victuallers (talk) 10:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC) | Crisco 1492 (talk) | Crisco 1492 (talk) | Crisco 1492 (talk) | Fine Crisco 1492 (talk) |
Has three uncited paragraphs. The odds (After the race the bookmakers offered her at odds of 14/1 for the following year's 1000 Guineas.) should have a source too. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- This is a DYK nomination, not a WP:GA review. The hook's facts are cited; are the uncited paragraphs controversial in some way? Frank | talk 04:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- Per supplementary rule D2: "The article in general should use inline, cited sources. A rule of thumb is one inline citation per paragraph, excluding the intro, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize other cited content.". The odds are a statistic, so it would be best to have a citation for that too. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- Excellent; that describes this article perfectly. 3 out of 15 paragraphs don't have a cite; that means that 12 out of 15 do, so the articles definitely does, in general, use inline, cited sources - 22 of them in 15 paragraphs excluding the lede. This is a brand-new article - an article which sprang into Wikipedia fully-formed, even if not fully-developed. It's exactly the sort of content we should be showcasing, and exactly the kind of contribution we should be encouraging. Frank | talk 06:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- Except for the fact that it says "one inline citation per paragraph". Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, it says "...one inline citation per paragraph..." - immediately after "[a] rule of thumb is ..." This is an example where "rule of thumb" is met; there are more citations than there are paragraphs, the article is well written and uncontroversial, and its author has never even had a DYK and didn't nominate the article, so there's no attempt here at garnering badges. This is a well-written article, the kind we should be encouraging, not wiki-lawyering. There are at least two reasons for even having featured content: to encourage readers to look at some of our better content, and to encourage authors to create it. Frank | talk 07:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- If you disagree with my "wikilawyering", please feel free to seek a second opinion. However, most regular reviewers are just as strict about that rule, so it may be easier to just add the references now. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
It strikes me that the sentence "She was trained at two and three by Richard Hannon and was one of the last important horses ridden by Lester Piggott" ought also to be cited. Both this, and the fact about the odds are the sort of 'interesting facts' that could form the basis of an alternative hook. If they weren't invented, then there should not be a problem with sourcing it. If it's unimportant, these should be removed as WP:TRIVIA. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, and since most readers are like me and know little of the world of horseracing, 'trained at two and three' should be explained (or rendered unambiguous) if this sentence is to be retained. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- I was able to use one of the cited sources as a ref for the 14-1. Someone had added a ref on Lester Piggott and I modified that bit a little to match it. I see the "at two and three" has now been clarified also, although I thought it was clear enough in context (even though I am also no horse-racing afficionado). So could you have a look again and see whether it's now adequately sourced and clarified in your estimation? Yngvadottir (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- In terms of the hook, ALT1 looks OK except, that it was oone of his wife's favourite recipes. Saying that it was one of his wife's recipes would suggest that Lady Carnarvon invented the souffle. Kevin McE (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- Good point Kevin. I've added favourite to the hook. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Other reviewers were asked to pile in. I'm more than happy with the quantity of refs, and I'm happy to use a rule of thumb. (I realise that reviewing is a tricky process and the simplest way to gain approval is to stick to aspirational interpretations of the rules as it save debate.... I must admit I usually do to save time) Victuallers (talk) 10:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
