Template:Did you know nominations/Ruisreikäleipä

Ruisreikäleipä

 * ... that ruisreikäleipä (pictured) is a Finnish rye hole loaf which was stored for all the nordic winter's length and is still a main component of the Finnish diet?
 * Comment: Translation from Finnish sourced article, also with English language source as a complement for better verifiability and globalisation.
 * I've reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Khirbet Zanuta although exempt (first nomination for me and article wasn't created by me).

Created/expanded by Nikerabbit (talk). Nominated by Nemo bis (talk) at 08:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)



Article is long enough and new enough but the last two paragraphs of the article are not sourced. Volunteer Marek 20:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, thank you for your comment. Speaking of sources, as they talk of past usage for some things I restored the past tense for them. As for the last two paragraphs, they are the "non-original" part of it, moved from Finnish bread; they're just a consequence of the first two, so to say, so they're basically supported by the same sources, which however I didn't want to cite inline for any specific fact. To me, it seems compliant with WP:DYKSG. --Nemo 21:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, DYKSG#D2 does require inline citations, with at least one per paragraph. Also, I checked the English language source and at least that one doesn't have much material concerning the last two paragraphs. I looked at a google translation of the other two and I didn't see anything in particular about the taste and texture of the bread. But if the info's somewhere in there I can WP:AGF that if you just add the right source citation to the right paragraph.
 * As to the tense, I wasn't sure if it was supposed to be past tense or present tense, but the problem was that it switched between them. As long as it's consistent then grammatically it's fine. Volunteer Marek 21:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've tweaked the tense in the paragraph where it jumped too much; now there's only a switch from speaking of the past/tradition and of the present.
 * As for the sources, I meant the rule "excluding [...] paragraphs which summarize other cited content" and yes I believe those two paragraphs don't really add anything to what they say. The other sources I can find are either too scientific or too personal (like blogs) and either too specific or too general, so that they support what those two paragraphs say but can't really be used as inline sources. I've added two more sources at the end for more context; I think it's better than just adding a number of inline citations which are not very tightly attached to the content, but if you want I can add more that way. --Nemo 08:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, but at the end of the day, the text of the article needs to be supported by citations, at least one at the end of each paragraph. If those two paragraphs don't add anything and can't be sourced then they should be removed. But if that happens, then the article will need to be expanded in some other way, lest it fall below the 1500 character threshold. I can see the two sources you added, but they also do not address the info in those two paragraphs. And yes, you should not add inline citations from these two sources to those two paragraphs since they don't address that particular content. But that doesn't mean that those two paragraphs don't need citations. Volunteer Marek 02:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Still no sourcing for final two paragraphs, which is required for DYK. This nomination cannot pass without them. Offering another week to bring the article up to standards. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, most of the info in the uncited paragraphs comes from the first external link Finnish Bread, which is a personal blog/family site with no reliable sources (probably why it is not inline cited). I could not find the info through more reliable channels, but I do not speak Finnish. Froggerlaura  ribbit 21:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not replying before. WP:RS says: «A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim». I'm all for precise sourcing, as I said above, and I added uralica.com as it seems a reliable specialized source to me, but what are you exactly asking sources for in those two paragraphs? They say quite obvious things (that a rough bread is rough and that chewing more breaks the complex carbohydrates), we're bordering WP:BLUE... Finally, if no adequate source is found, if you feel it necessary I think we can remove those two paragraphs and expand the article slightly with the other sources we have. --Nemo 22:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The rules require at least one inline cite per paragraph. The description of the consistency, texture and taste of the bread should be sourced to somewhere so it doesn't seem like OR. The last sentence "In Finnish culinary folklore, this dynamic aspect of tough, sour rye breads, and in particular reikäleipä, is nowadays a well-known and even sought-after quality" is not a lightweight claim and should be credited to a reliable source. The hook fact is sourced reliably, so lesser sources could be allowed for these bits but the source should still have some sort of editorial oversight. Froggerlaura  ribbit 14:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the rule doesn't say exactly that or it would be easy to circumvent; anyway, thanks, ✅ by removing that sentence. --Nemo 20:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg(The last two paragraphs were still uncited.) I found a source for the last two paragraphs. Paraphrasing, length, date are okay. Image has acceptable license. Froggerlaura  ribbit 02:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)