Template:Did you know nominations/Máchica


 * 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 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Pinol, Máchica

 * ... that although pinol, a drink made with máchica (toasted barley flour), panela (unrefined sugar) and spices, was invented in the 20th century, it's already considered a traditional beverage of Ecuador?
 * ALT1: ... that although pinol, a beverage made with toasted barley flour (pictured), unrefined sugar, and spices, was invented in the 20th century, it is already considered a traditional beverage of Ecuador?
 * ALT1a: ... that although pinol (pictured), a beverage made with toasted barley flour, unrefined sugar, and spices, was invented in the 20th century, it is already considered a traditional food of Ecuador?
 * Reviewed: Berta Bobath & Louise Upton Brumback

Created by GrammarFascist (talk). Self-nominated at 03:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol possible vote.svg By my count, this is 200 characters with spaces. Per DYK, hook should be fewer than 200 characters. LavaBaron (talk) 07:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Per WP:DYKSG, A hook introducing more than one article is an exception to the hook length rule; the details are on the page. By this rule, the hook counts as under 200 characters. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * QPQ added to this nomination, too, LavaBaron. Apologies again for my tardiness. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 15:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg Per WP:DYKSG, no parentheses are permitted in the hook unless absolutely avoidable. I'm convinced these are avoidable. The English translation of panela isn't necessary to understand the hook as panela could be sugar, paprika, or maple syrup, and the theme of the hook (that a recently invented drink is already the national drink of Ecuador) would still relevant. 17:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought it read as more confusing than intriguing with the parentheticals removed, but I couldn't see a good way to keep the hook under 200 characters if I simply replaced the parentheses with other punctuation. (It's WP:DYKSG that bars parentheses, BTW.) It seems a shame to lose the Spanish terms, but does ALT1 work, LavaBaron? — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 21:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg Unfortunately, supplementary rule C10 requires non-English text be enclosed in language brackets. While I thought pinol might be a proper noun, a direct translation is included in the Oxford Spanish Dictionary so C10 applies. LavaBaron (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I was reading "non-English text" — as opposed to non-English words — as meaning that C10 applied only to phrases or longer passages, not to single words. But it does no harm to add tags; indeed, doing so didn't make any difference I can discern. — GrammarFascist   contribs talk 22:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg Sorry you were confused, but thanks for taking care of that. I'm also concerned the hook violates supplementary rule D10 through contradiction by process of exclusion. The article Ecuadorian cuisine doesn't mention pinol, even though the hook promotes it as an important traditional beverage. Can you rewrite the Ecuadorian Cuisine article so it includes pinol? LavaBaron (talk) 07:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The hook never claimed pinol as an "important" traditional beverage, and a lack of mention is hardly a contradiction. Nevertheless, I agree that pinol should be mentioned in Ecuadorian cuisine; and now it is. tags have been added to the articles as well. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 16:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Sorry you were confused, but thanks much for taking care of that! One slight concern I had, in respect of supplementary rule D12, is that the hook is sourced strictly to El Telégrafo. The idea that a food would be among a nation's "traditional" dishes should be sourceable to multiple RS so we're certain this isn't being used in a colloquial context by one specific author. (For instance, one might jocularly or casually say "Tim Horton's is a Canadian tradition," with the implication for a Canadian being somewhat frivolous and light while a non-Canadian might misinterpret that to mean it is a cornerstone of Canadian culinary culture.) Can you add an additional source to the article to support the hook? LavaBaron (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The title of the very first source listed under References is literally "El Tradicional Pinol" [Traditional Pinol]. That source is now cited in addition to the El Telégrafo source for the statement "Despite its relatively recent mid-20th-century origin, pinol is considered a traditional food." — GrammarFascist [[Special:Contributions/GrammarFascist|

contribs ]]talk 23:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg Unfortunately this nom doesn't pass the Image criteria as it doesn't include the word "pictured," as per WP:DYK. LavaBaron (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oversight corrected. Would it be too much trouble for you to list whatever problems you've found all at once, LavaBaron, rather than parceling them out one by one? That seems like it would be more efficient. Thanks, GrammarFascist   contribs talk 17:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I've just been made aware of this conversation you've been having about me where you posit I have "poor reading comprehension" and "poor social skills," seemingly in reference to this DYK review . Out of an abundance of concern that this might color my judgment in the case of this DYK, I am withdrawing as reviewer, so there is no question about the neutrality of the review. This is a fine article and I'm sure it will be taken-up and promoted quickly by another reviewer. However, it is probably best if I withdraw to protect the integrity of the process and avoid the perception that any further critique by me is being done to be POINTy or retributive. LavaBaron (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I had no problem assuming good faith on your part, LavaBaron, but if you're more comfortable withdrawing from reviewing this nomination, by all means do so. There are plenty of older nominations that deserve to be reviewed anyway. And there is no deadline. { — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 20:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg Both articles new enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced. As all refs are in Spanish, unable to check for close paraphrasing. QPQs done.
 * Regarding the hooks: I agree with the previous reviewer that there are too many parenthetical translations in the hook, as well as a conjunction (it's). The second hook reads much better; I removed the conjunction. The hook length is 185 characters, pretty good for a double nom! The hook fact appears in the Pinol article and the foreign-language hook ref is AGF and cited inline. Per previous discussions at WT:DYK, the hook fact does not need to appear in the second nominated article. My only question is why the cited hook fact as it appears in Pinol says it is a "traditional food", while the lead and hook calls it a "traditional beverage". The source also seems to be calling it a "food". Thanks for your explanation.
 * Regarding the image: It is freely licensed and appears in both articles. But the caption is too long and, frankly, confusing. I think it would be much better to picture the finished drink for clarity's sake. This image is also freely licensed and appears in the Pinol article:


 * Yoninah (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, Yoninah, thanks for taking over this review. Replacing "it's" with "it is" was of course correct per MOS, thank you for changing it. The reason why the article, and one of the sources, call pinol a food rather than a beverage is that pinol — meaning the mixture of máchica, panela and spices — has uses other than making pinol — the beverage usually made by combining pinol-the-mixture with milk. The one word is used to refer to both the prepared dry mixture and the resulting beverage, similar to American usage of "cocoa" to refer to both powdered cocoa and the beverage also called "hot chocolate". Do you think I should make that double usage clearer in the pinol article? I don't recall any of the sources I used stating explicitly that the same word is used in both senses, and I'm leery of committing the sin of synthesis. Regarding the image, my thought had been that it would be better to use the image that showed both máchica and pinol (the dry mix), but I have no objection to using the photo of prepared pinol (the beverage) instead. Would you caption it simply "Pinol"? — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 23:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Your comparison to cocoa is very apt. I think you should clarify in the lead (where non-controversial information doesn't have to be sourced) that pinol is both a powder and a beverage. The hook fact, though, has to be cited inline, and the only cite I find for it is calling pinol a food rather than a beverage. Can you find another source that calls it a "traditional beverage"?
 * Your idea of showing both máchica and pinol in the image is a good one, but the caption is 3 lines long and the máchica is in a bag, so you can't see it at all. Yes, I would say just "Pinol" in the caption, since this word is bolded in the hook. Yoninah (talk) 23:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Yoninah, I have modified the lead of Pinol per your suggestion.
 * I had been taking the El Telégrafo reference as referring to the beverage pinol rather than the mix pinol, since despite the original manufacturer's contention that the mix can be eaten plain I've never known anyone to actually do that — but of course I can't cite my personal experience. What do you think of simply changing the phrase "traditional beverage" to "traditional food" in the hook? See ALT1a above.
 * (The tan color surrounding the word "Máchica" on the bag is actually the product visible through clear plastic, but thanks for reminding me that that isn't obvious.) Two mugs of pinol captioned simply Pinol looks good to me. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 00:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, we're set on the image. As to the description of pinol, I did a little searching in English-language sources and found these definitions: pinol: ground barley, pinol: malted barley, pinol: toasted barley, pinol is a "food". I'm also finding sources that call it a Nicaraguan drink and a Guatemalan drink – you may want to expand the geography of the drink beyond the manufacturer you're citing. And does this say anything about our subject? Yoninah (talk) 02:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Taking things in reverse order: I have no idea what the source in what looks like Hebrew says, I'm afraid, but if you can read it and it seems relevant, Yoninah, perhaps you can add it to the article after you've discharged your reviewing duties. Regarding a similar food/beverage in Guatemala, Mexico, Nicaragua etc., that's covered by the hatnote pointing to the usual spelling pinole used in that part of the world; in any case the current version of the Pinol article does not rely solely on references to the manufacturer that originated the mixture.
 * Thank you for finding English-language sources! I did look for some, but clearly not as exhaustively as you did. If I can figure out the context (including where exactly the described incident took place) I will add the mention in Congressional Edition: Volume 6474; unfortunately for Ecuador & Galapagos Guide while I see that Google Books yielded a result I can't see the result to use it; the result in The Mountaineers Books seems to be a misunderstanding on the author's part (they also conflate pinol with máchica) based on no other source I've seen identifying the relevant process being malting rather than toasting (I suppose I could add mention of pinol being used for breakfast by backpacking tourists to the article, even though that source unfortunately offers no directions as to how the pinol or máchica is to be used); and "ground barley" seems not a contradictory description of "toasted barley flour", merely an incomplete one, since the word flour means ground grain (or occasionally ground legumes or nuts). On the whole it's not surprising that foreign-language sources would contain omissions or misunderstandings about a food mainly found in one fairly small region. I imagine I would similarly find evidence of confusion in Spanish-language sources talking about the egg cream, for example. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 13:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol voting keep.svg OK. I think my last post dealt with expanding the article, not improving it for DYK. Since the lead now clarifies that pinol is both a powder and a drink, I think it's fine to call it a "traditional food", which is what the source says. The foreign-language hook ref for ALT1a is AGF and cited inline. The new image is freely licensed. ALT1a good to go. Yoninah (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)