Template:Did you know nominations/Baking mix


 * 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: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn, because the word "list" was used in the article. Note to self and all DYK participants: never include the word "list" in a section or subsection header when working to create a new article, because this one four-letter word automatically disqualifies one's work in that section of the article for DYK, despite all the time and energy exerted. Live and learn, I suppose. North America1000 11:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Baking mix

 * ... that gluten-free baking mixes may use rice flour in place of wheat flour?


 * ALT1: ... that all-purpose baking mixes can be used to prepare diverse foods, such as biscuits, pancakes, muffins and pizza dough?
 * Reviewed: Esteban Servellón

Created by Northamerica1000 (talk). Self-nominated at 09:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Interesting information. Length, date and hook references are all in order. No copy vio noted. I prefer the original hook. Good to go.-- Nvvchar . 14:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Because lists are excluded from character count, this falls short of minimum length. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have restored the previous formatting on the page (diff). While entries in the Baking mixes and manufacturers section consist of short paragraphs, it is no longer in list format. These entries can also be expanded. I would prefer for the content to not be reverted back into a list format. North America1000 12:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * NA1000, the section is currently a list, no matter how it is formatted, and is not eligible to be counted towards DYK minimums. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Not particularly. Notice the expansion I am working on in the article's Baking mixes and manufacturers section, which I have been planning. These things take time. Please reconsider your stance. North America1000 12:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I said "currently" - when it was promoted it was not eligible for DYK, though that may change. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New review requested per expansion that has occurred in the article, whereby content has been added and formatted in prose format. North America1000 12:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg As best I can tell, the material in yesterday's expansion was almost entirely taken from existing articles: in short, not new material, and thus not new for DYK purposes. Worse, by DYK rules, material copied from other Wikipedia articles into the nominated article must then be 5x expanded (see WP:DYKSG). Under the circumstances, I don't see how the article can qualify for DYK in its current form; if it becomes a GA, of course, it would be eligible then. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: reclosing this properly, so the templates can do their full job and categories are properly ordered. (A withdrawal is counted as the nomination having been rejected.) Nominators should not close their own nominations, per notice near the top of the template. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)