Template:Did you know nominations/Sugar candy

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Skr15081997 (talk) 13:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Sugar candy[edit]

(
)

Created by WhatamIdoing (talk). Self nominated at 22:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC).

  • The article currently has 1,375 characters of prose, and is thus ineligible per rule A3. If you could expand the lead considerably and maybe add some prose to the "Types" section, then perhaps it might just cut it. The article certainly looks comprehensive. As a side note, the image does not appear in the article. – 23W (talk · contribs) 22:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
User:23W, can you explain how you arrive at a count of 1375 characters? Are you ignoring the entire ==Types== section solely because it's formatted in a less obtrusive way? Because if that's the case, I can trivially re-format all of those obviously prose paragraphs into short sections that say ===Fondants=== rather than ;Fondants. It won't actually change the content, but if that's what you need to make some mindless script happy, it will take maybe 30 seconds. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • WhatamIdoing It's your call. I like the appearance of definition lists in general and I think they look good here, but are technically not considered part of the prose. The article now reads 1,721 characters; based on the one citation I can access, I can't detect any close paraphrasing. The hook is short and hooky, and everything else would be in short order, accepting the hook's offline citation in good faith, but the image still isn't present in the article. – 23W (talk · contribs) 02:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I believe that the "lists" rule for DYK is meant to cover real lists, not whole paragraphs that happen to use association formatting—or even bullet formatting—to make it easier to read. That is, it properly covers true lists like Order of the Thistle#Knights founder (restored order) but not "lists" like the list of clothing at Order of the Thistle#Habit and insignia, which is almost identical to the list of clothing at Order of the Bath#Habit and insignia, except that one set of paragraphs has bullet points at the front, and the other does not (and the colors of the clothes change between the two orders ;-).
I'm not sure that the lollipop really makes a good image for the article, which is why I haven't added it yet. (It's a better image for the hook than for the article as a whole.) My thought is that if DYK needs an image that day, then we can (immediately under ==Types==), but if there's a better available for the DYK section on the main page that day, we might skip it.
My next quest for the article is to see whether I can find a (sourced) example of lozenge pastes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Going off criteria, anything other than prose not is counted; it would be interesting to battle it out on WT:DYK page to maybe set a precedent for future nominations, though. Anyways, good to go in current form, assuming the image goes unused. – 23W (talk · contribs) 22:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • This review should have covered additional DYK criteria such as neutrality and sourcing. Most of the article is based on one source, an industry handbook, but in fact the first sentence in each section is cited to that source, while the rest of the specific details and percentages are not cited at all. Yoninah (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • What are you referring to when you mean "industry handbook"? The percentages are all cited to McWilliams 2007 through the reference after the colon, while the definitions listed under "Types" are cited to NPCS 2013.
You're right about the first sentences being cited only as improper; the same information in the following sentences is present in NPCS as far as I can tell, and one could infer that it goes with the same source, but this needs to be more explicit. – 23W (talk · contribs) 23:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Yoninah and 23W, please review WP:MINREF. There is nothing "improper" here. There is, and never has been, any requirement for every single sentence in an article to be provided with a duplicate copy of an inline citation. When all material can be verified from the same source, then one citation per paragraph is sufficient. (Indeed, in this instance, since everything can be verified in the one source, one source for the entire section would be sufficient.) WP:CITE, which the DYK criteria explicitly invoke, decries needless inclusion of inline citations within paragraphs as "visual clutter". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Your reasoning is solid and I'm going to give this a check anyways, but I have the references moved to the end of each sentence in an edit window, and it doesn't look cluttered at all. Maybe it's just personal preference, but if you can maintain text-source integrity and aesthetics with one stone, then all the better. – 23W (talk · contribs) 00:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Uh, I also think that this is the user's first nomination, so no QPQ is necessary; that checks out too. – 23W (talk · contribs) 00:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Why is this article required? Surely Candy starts by saying that Candy is made from sugar ... Victuallers (talk) 08:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Victuallers, that's a great question. I have explained it at WT:FOOD (which I invite you to join). The cryptic answer is that Candy is American English. The more useful answer is that I'd hoped to have a tree of articles that ran from sugar confectionery to candy to boiled sweets, but that, as I've learned more, we need another category in between those last two. In the end, sugar confectionery includes candy and ice cream and marmalade; candy includes sugar candy, chewing gum, and chocolates; and sugar candy includes boiled sweets, fondants (not fondant icing), caramels, taffies, etc (but not chewing gum or chocolates). My ultimate goal is to re-write Candy. This is one of the supporting pieces that I need for that work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • If all the information in the paragraph is cited to the same source, please put the cite at the end of the paragraph, not in the first line. Otherwise, any reasonable editor will slap a "citation needed" tag on all the information that's not cited:

  • Fondant candy is a partly crystallized, two-phased sugar candy.[1] It is about 88% sugar by weight, usually with much more sucrose than glucose. In making fondant, a stiff sugar paste is cooked to a high temperature, then carefully cooled and mechanically beaten to produce the desired texture.

  • Jellies and gums are thick liquid sugar candies.[1] Gums, such as wine gums, are drier than jellies. They are made from sugar syrup plus a gelling agent. They are cooked to the lowest temperature of all sugar candies and consequently have the highest water content of sugar candies, about 20 to 25% water. Their stiffness depends on the type and amount of gelling agent, the final concentration, the pH of the product, and other factors. The most popular forms of gelling agent are gelatin, agar-agar, starch (more typical of American jelly candies), and pectin (more typical of European candies). These produce different effects. For example, starch produces cloudy jellies, while high-methoxyl pectin produces clear ones. Agar-based jellies are harder to dissolve, and gelatin-based jellies have a more rubbery texture.

  • Yoninah (talk) 09:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Both citation styles are used and acceptable, as well as putting citations both at the start and end of paragraphs. WP:CITEVAR says that I get to pick which one I want to use, even if that's not the same style that you would use. You might want to read Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/FAQ for basic information about the community's refusal to have a "house style", and Wikipedia:Inline_citation#Citation_density for this relevant advice: "The inline citation could be placed at any sensible location, but the end of the paragraph is the most common choice." "Most common" does not mean "required". I've chosen in this instance to provide the citation at the end of the topic sentence, rather than at the end of the paragraph. And, more generally, I don't want this to sound even the least bit mean or harsh, but I'm one of the 'regulars' at WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:MEDRS for years. I've written significant portions of those policies and guidelines. As a result of many years of involvement there, I do actually know what the rules for citations are, and I can assure you that there is not a single violation of those pages anywhere in this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Can someone else take a look at this? As for referencing, I don't know what to say, WhatamIdoing. As you stated, it works both ways, but if users are going to be confused as to what reference pairs with what text, then I think it warrants some clarification. I have the refs moved to the end of each line, and it looks just as good and with no clutter. You might just want to do so and get this over with. – 23W (talk · contribs) 18:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I seriously doubt that any readers will be confused by this; it's used by thousands of articles, and it's the most common style for lists (e.g., the bulleted list containing three points in the first section). If any editors are honestly confused (which is unlikely, since the entire section is supported by the same source), then they'll tag the sentences they're concerned about, and I'll respond then. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Yikes, what a puzzle this nom template is - there are bits of review scattered throughout the above discussion, and it's difficult to tell whether all the review-bits have been done yet. To speed up and clarify this nom, I'll review it again, and hopefully this will only echo and confirm the results of the hard work already done here. WhatamIdoing, if you feel that this new review is not helpful, please comment and let us know. Meanwhile thank you for your continuing effort and patience in this nom; you have really been put through the mill here. --Storye book (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • New enough (created and nominated 26 May) and long enough. Hook image is free (but see issue 1). No problem with access to external links. External links for citations were checked for copyvio and close paraphrasing; none found. The text is objective and neutral in tone. Re the lack of citations at the ends of some paragraphs: I accept the explanation (above) by the nominator that the citation in the middle or beginning of each paragraph is sufficient, and that the remainder is explanation of those sources. Issues: (1) Hook image must either appear in the article as well, or be removed from the hook. (2) This hook needs to be copied in full into the text (maybe in the header, or as an example in the "Types - Hard candies and pulled candies" section?) with its citations(s) next to it. This is because firstly the bits of text explaining the hook are separated between two sections of the text, and secondly the words, "lollipop" and "rock-hard", do not appear in the text, therefore your average reader wanting to understand and verify it cannot currently go via a browser-page-search straight to the bit relating to the hook. (3) The link "jellies" goes to a disambig page. Summary: If issues 1-3 can be resolved, then this nom is good to go. --Storye book (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Note re the prose character count: I have counted the whole Types section as prose because it's really a single paragraphed passage intended to differentiate between types of sugar candy. IMO the subtitles are there to aid comparison between the types. If you removed the subheadings and paragraphing, the prose would still work as a single, continuous, logical piece. In comparison with prose for the purposes of this discussion, I would define a list as a series of sections which would form a whole bunch of non-sequiturs if its numbering/subheadings were removed and the whole lot pushed together into one paragraph. Therefore I have counted the Types section as prose for the character count. --Storye book (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Storye book,

  1. I'd rather remove the "hook image"; I offered it only as an option if no better ones existed for whatever six-hour stretch this might run on, and I know there have been complaints recently about poor-quality images for DYK.
  2. I've added it to the ==Classification== section. Please have a look and tell me if you think that makes an adequate compromise between the fun hook and formal encyclopedic style.
  3. I've been thinking about that dab link to Jellies[disambiguation needed] for a while. I'm currently think that it ought to point to Jelly (candy), a redlink. But it could go to Jelly (fruit preserves); the line between jelly-that-is-candy and jelly-that-is-jam is sometimes as thin as marketing. I haven't changed it because I haven't made up my mind. If anyone has an opinion, then he should feel free to be bold. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you, WhatamIdoing. I have removed the image from the hook as per your point 1 above. Re your point 2: thank you; the hook is now in the article, split between the image caption and the first para of the types section. The piece of hook in the types section is sourced in citation #1, but please could you kindly add inline citation(s) to the image caption? Re your point 3 about the dablink: it is OK to have red links in DYK articles, so you are free to adjust the link whenever or however you wish. Summary: when you have cited the image caption, this nom will be OK. --Storye book (talk) 07:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Storye book, as far as I can tell, there is a citation on the image caption. Where does this stand now, three weeks on? I should point out that I don't see anything in the review noting that this article is a split from hard candy, and hence all the material from the original article needs to be 5x expanded. So it isn't a 1500 prose character minimum, but a 5x expansion of 1054 characters taken from that source article. As best I can determine, 225 of these characters are contained here in bullets, and since that means they don't count as prose in this article, they can't also count as prose to be expanded, which gives 829 as the base for expansion, or a total of 4145 required. DYKcheck gives less than that, but with the "Types" section being allowed (as you note above) as prose—it would be a simple matter to change the bold "headers" to actual subheaders—this is about 7000 prose characters, and thus now exceeds the required expansion, though it might well not have at the time of earlier approvals. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Review update. Thank you, BlueMoonset. I hope no-one minds; I have taken it on myself (since no-one else has) to correct the subheading format for the Types section, to allow me as a reviewer to check the readable prose count for that section. I hope that doesn't disqualify me from reviewing, but I couldn't review properly without that edit. So DYK check now shows a prose character count of 7038. So I can now confirm that the expansion of material from the original Hard Candy article fulfils the DYK requirement. The disambig has been corrected, and the image is now in the right place. The hook is now easy to find in the text, and is referenced to offline citation #3, taken AGF. --Storye book (talk) 09:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • All issues now resolved. Good to go (at last!).--Storye book (talk) 09:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Sugar_candy&oldid=1142776490"