Template:Did you know nominations/Cup

Cup

 * ... that a cup (pictured) is a small container for drinks?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Cesar Hernandez (infielder)
 * Comment: This is my first DYK nomination. I wrote the article on "cup" because I thought it was silly that we didn't have one. (Almost) everything else on list of glassware had an article except for this, so I wrote it. I'm not married to the hook that I chose; I do like it though because it goes to show how much further we still have to go on this encyclopedia (i.e., this article should've been written eight or more years ago). I did a QPQ review (here) but as I'm new at this, someone should check it.

Created by Red Slash (talk). Self nominated at 00:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg Length, date, hook ok. Good to see that there is an article on this item. However, the references are bare links, would need to be fleshed out. --Soman (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I ran it through reflinks. Can you take a look at it again, Soman (or someone)? Thank you so much for the kind words! Red  Slash  02:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

That looks better, thanks. --Soman (talk) 03:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg Wait. Don't promote this yet. I'm astonished that there hasn't been an article on such common topic until now, kudos to Red Slash for writing it. However, everyone knows what a cup is. Do you have a more interesting hook? --Jakob (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, Jakec, I kind of wanted to point out the deficiencies in our project. I wanted to highlight, HEY, random reader! Do you think there's not room for you to become an editor and improve the encyclopedia? Look! You have the power to make a difference. We didn't even have an article on cups until this week! So I wanted the hook to intentionally be silly. I mean, I guess I could've said "... that the Romans developed a cup that could change colors?" but nobody would dream that the article in question was actually cup; they'd assume it was an article on that particular cup. If the consensus is to avoid an intentionally silly hook, that is fine, and I suppose I would be alright with "... that cups have been found dating back to thousands of years ago?" or something else, but the point of the article is not exactly that. Put simply, I think the most interesting thing to our readers will be the hook I proposed. If that doesn't get casual readers of the encyclopedia to do a "whaaaaa?" then I don't know what would. Sounds like a good hook to me. Red  Slash  01:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The hook is simple and very unusual and IMO very hooky - I suspect it will do well Victuallers (talk) 14:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * @RedSlash: I see were you're coming from: the very presence of such a common topic at DYK would make it interesting. There's still one question I have: Rule D7 (extended rules) says that articles should appear reasonably complete. Is there really only one screen's worth of info on cups out there? --Jakob (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you both! Umm, well, it's really hard to find good external sources dealing with cups. I've fleshed the article out a bit more but there's not a ton more to add. I got it well over the bare minimum for length, I know, but I agree with you, it's kind of short. Red  Slash  03:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, take a look now and see what you think. Red  Slash  03:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Great job on creating the article, Slash. I think your hook is pretty good. The one about the Roman cup is a nice alt, but I agree with you that it implies the page is on that specific cup. I'll look for sources to keep expanding the page. Google Books has Basket, Basin, Plate, and Cup: Vessels in the Liturgy and The history of the tea-cup, for starters.-- Brainy J  ~ ✿ ~ ( talk ) 13:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for your kind words! My question: is the article not sufficient as is? I thought the articles behind DYK nominations did not have to be mature, fully fleshed-out articles. Was I wrong? Red  Slash  00:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well...tell you what. Let's keep this on hold for three days or so to see if it gets expanded. It'll be approved after that time whether or not it does. For the record, I was thinking of something like the similar mug article in terms of length. --Jakob (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me? This is already twice as long as required by DYK rules. Mug is more developed, yes, but it's also about ten years older. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Admittedly it could be further more expanded, and I would urge people to do so if possible. However, it seems to be reasonably well-developed so why not Symbol confirmed.svg pass it? --Jakob (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yay! So now what? Does this get promoted? Red  Slash  05:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)