Template:Did you know nominations/Chicken and duck blood soup

Chicken and duck blood soup

 * ... that chicken and duck blood soup is viewed as a healthy food in its origin city Shanghai and was well-liked by then-King of Cambodia Norodom Sihanouk?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Moewardi

Created by Bonkers The Clown (talk). Self nominated at 04:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Just long enough, by a handful of bytes; certainly new enough; no copyvios or other major policy violations found. Hook is an appropriate length and is quite catchy; the sources in the article also verify the statements directly. My only issue is the use of the word country to describe Shanghai - I'm going to charitably assume that was meant to say "origin city", and have amended the hook accordingly. QPQ done, no images - good to go. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  10:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! Yeah, I meant to say "city". .__. ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 10:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg What BlueMoonset stated in Template:Did you know nominations/Duck's head applies here as well – the "article reads like a stub, with too little information," and even at 1553 characters, "it's too short and with insufficient information to qualify." Maybe try expanding this article a bit more, like elaborating on its history or its importance to Shanghai. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What? It's a cultural icon – mentioned History is a long paragraph! ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 05:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The "History" paragraph is only 2 sentences long at 434 characters. That's not long at all. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd also appreciate if wouldn't label the legitimate concerns of both BlueMoonset and myself as "some frustrating roadblock". And what's with the big rush – none of these DYKs should be "easy nomination[s]."  They'll be passed when they have met DYK standards. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, "frustrating roadblock" isn't exactly the sort of terminology used to describe good faith attempts at discussion... In the spirit of such discussion, let me offer my take on the matter. To my mind, applying the Croughton-London rule suggests that this is more than a stub. An article of this length on an obscure subject for which the only major sources are in Chinese (and largely tangential at that) would, IMHO, be sufficient to qualify as Start class. The 1500-character rule isn't hard-and-fast, and if I had been concerned about the level of coverage I would have failed the nomination myself - however, I deemed that there was sufficient information (considering the comparative unimportance of the subject) to make this a suitable article for promotion. Bloom6132 is free to second-guess me on that, but I would expect an argument based on the DYK ruleset rather than "I don't think it's enough" - there's always going to be some degree of subjectivity in these debates, but there's nothing I can see in the DYK rules that would make me fail this article on anything other than subjective grounds. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  06:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Let me make this clear – I will not fail this article if improvements can be made. Heck, I'll give you all the time you need to expand this if necessary. What BlueMoonset and I are concerned about the coverage of info in this article, not so much about the 1,500+ character minimum. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Isn't it clear in Yunshui's statement that there is sufficient coverage and that the article is negligibly not a "stub"? Adding to that, "I can see in the DYK rules that would make me fail this article on anything other than subjective grounds". The latter statement was along the lines of what I was going to write. ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 08:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanking Yunshui for his speedy and insightful response. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 08:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * @BTC – No, in fact it isn't clear in Yunshui's statement. DYKAR D7 stipulates how "an article—even a short one—that is to appear on the front page should appear to be complete and not some sort of work in progress," as well as how "[a]rticles that fail to deal adequately with the topic are also likely to be rejected."  Furthermore, DYK rule 2d gives "selecting reviewers" the right to reject "articles longer than 1,500 characters...as too short."  Don't come to the assumption that your 1,500–1,600 character-long DYKs can be passed automatically; no DYK contributor has the right to such treatment. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, now we're getting somewhere. If I understand your citing of D7 correctly, Bloom6132, you're arguing that the article doesn't deal "adequately" with the subject. Obviously I disagree, so I guess we need to come to some sort of agreement on what would constitute "adequate" coverage. For me, as stated above, it's very much topic dependent - I don't expect that this will ever get enough coverage to become a Featured Article (probably not even a Good one), and so to my mind, adequate coverage would give the reader an idea of what the subject is, why it's important enough for an article, where it comes from and any other points of particular interest or significance. Adequate coverage, to me, does not imply a comprehensive or even extensive description of any of these things - I therefore regard this as "adequate", in that it summarises the major elements that can reasonably be said to constitute an encyclopedic article on the topic. That's not to say it can't be expanded and improved (obviously it can), merely that as it stands, it suffices for DYK standards. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  09:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * @Yunshui: So you're supporting my case, right? Yes, all we ask for is relatively adequate coverage. Extensive coverage would be something of GA or FA criteria. But we are not getting anywhere. They will just come up with more wordy rebuttals. ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 09:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, the one way to solve this is for a neutral, third-party reviewer to look at this. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg I don't believe that this article cannot be expanded more. Maybe something can be added about the soup being used to treat anemia or about harmful pathogens that it can carry if not fully cooked. CNN covered it in an article. The soup can be found in multiple spots within Shanghai. Serious Eats mentioned it. Another source is . SL93 (talk) 05:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sheesh... How come i didn't notice this on my watchlist. Thanks for notifying me. Give me two days, please. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 07:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Two days were requested; it's been ten, and although the nominator has been quite busy editing—around 300 edits since the above post—nothing has been done here. The nomination is over a month old, and is being closed. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)