- 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 TheAwesomeHwyh 00:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Sagu (dessert)
Created by Scheridon (talk), Obsidian Soul (talk), BernardoSulzbach (talk), and Northamerica1000 (talk). Nominated by Scheridon (talk) at 17:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC).
- Comment – I've struck my user name above, because I've only performed very minor edits to the article. North America1000 20:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - same for me.- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 07:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough
|
|
|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
|
|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
|
|
|
| Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
|
|
|
Overall: 
Article was nominated within seven days from a large expansion therefore it is new enough. The readable prose count on July 11 was 1038, and the article now is at 5040, which is 250 characters short of a fivetime expansion. The article is missing citations for the last paragraph in the history section, and the entire preparation section. The tone of the article can use improvement, since it is not consistent throughout the text. No obvious copyvios were detected by Earwig. The hooks are interesting, but are not supported by citations appearing directly after the information. The nominator does not appear to have any DYK credits, therefore QPQ is not required. The photo used in this nomination does not appear in the article, but is more appealing that the photo used in the article. The easiest solution is to include both photos in the article. Flibirigit (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hi. I made some modifications to the article (the above mentioned paragraphs with sources, too). Scheridon (talk) 01:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. I will go through the changes in more detail tomorrow. Flibirigit (talk) 01:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- The changes are a good improvement. The photo in this nomination is used in the article, clear at a low resoulution, and is properly licensed. The other photo is also properly licensed for use in the article. Sourcing has been improved, but the first paragraph in "preparation" is not sourced. The two hooks are now properly cited in the introduction. The article is still a bit short of the required length. I think the easier solution here is to take the cited material from the introduction and move it into the history. A short summary of that material can go into the introduction, and it will make up the missing 250 characters or so for length. The article can still use a copyedit as well for a consistent encyclopedic tone. Overall, this is still a promising nomination. Flibirigit (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- I made more modifications. Regards. Scheridon (talk) 23:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- The added paragraph now makes the article long enough to meet requirements. The added citations to the article now meet the sourcing requirements. The addition of the map for the location of the state of Rio Grande do Sul in Brazil is a good idea, and it is properly licensed. I am unsure of how relevant the photo is depicted climate in the Rio Grande do Sul state. I don't see a connection discussed in the article. Is there any connection available? The statement "Idescribed as a sweet caviar full of little purple balls" in the "Taste and characteristics" section sounds interesting. Would you like to propose an ALT2 based on that idea? Flibirigit (talk) 20:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I can propose another ALT. Regarding that map, it shows the location of Serra Gaúcha — Gaucho Highlands (the mountainous place where this dessert was created) in the state of Rio Grande do Sul. Scheridon (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- I think it would be better to incorporate a link to Serra Gaúcha within the text of the article. The climate map is adequate on that page, but is confusing and not very germane to the dessert. I'm all ears if you want to propose an ALT2.Flibirigit (talk) 03:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- I changed the map about Serra Gaúcha (I found another map that shows the region, without the climate explanation. Scheridon (talk) 15:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- The newer map is much better. Is there any citation available to say the dessert originated in Serra Gaúcha? The new ALT2 looks great as well. I think we're almost ready. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Done. Regards. Scheridon (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I notice that the Independence of Brazil is coming up on September 7. Do you want to request this hook run on that day, or would any day be okay? Flibirigit (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
The added citation is great. The article now meets all DYK policies. All three hooks are verified, properly cited and mentioned inline. ALT0 and ALT2 are the best hooks. ALT1 could be an option as well. Flibirigit (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Any day would be OK (I prefer before that, if it is possible). Thanks! Scheridon (talk) 18:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Article was nominated within seven days from a large expansion therefore it is new enough. The readable prose count on July 11 was 1038, and the article now is at 5040, which is 250 characters short of a fivetime expansion. The article is missing citations for the last paragraph in the history section, and the entire preparation section. The tone of the article can use improvement, since it is not consistent throughout the text. No obvious copyvios were detected by Earwig. The hooks are interesting, but are not supported by citations appearing directly after the information. The nominator does not appear to have any DYK credits, therefore QPQ is not required. The photo used in this nomination does not appear in the article, but is more appealing that the photo used in the article. The easiest solution is to include both photos in the article. Flibirigit (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
