Template:Did you know nominations/Bagel and cream cheese

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Bagel and cream cheese[edit]

(

)

A bagel and cream cheese

... that the bagel and cream cheese (pictured) was very popular in the United States in the early 1950s, having permeated American culture? (Source: [1])

Reviewed: Radioactive nanoparticle

Created by Northamerica1000 (talk). Self-nominated at 07:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC).

Solid article, not many surprises, on plenty of sources, no copyvio obvious. The image is licensed and appetite-wetting. I am less happy with the hook. What does the "permeated" thing add? How interesting is "very popular", at whatever time? I liked some of the names, and just the lead reads more attractive for my taste: "... common dish and food pairing in American cuisine, the cuisine of New York City and American Jewish cuisine". - I went ahead and altered the headers, finding cuisine and mass production a contradiction in terms ;) - In the article, do we need the ref in the lead? (should better be in the body) - I'd be happier without the See also section. Can you make the note part of the text? (get's easily overlooked down there) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

ps: all entries in the further reading section appear with fat messages (to me) that they are not used as references. Do you want to use them? If not omit the ref-para. Another idea: saying in the hook "the food pairing b + cc is" might avoid the grammar confusion that after b + cc you expect "are", not "is". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I feel that this review is way too strict, as per WP:DYKNOT. This comes across as a GA review. Regarding the word "permeated", the source states that the dish "...had saturated the culture." I didn't want to use the word "saturated" because this would be close paraphrasing. When a food dish literally saturates a culture, I feel that it is worthy of inclusion in a hook, whereas omission of this would make the hook less interesting and less informative. I removed the citations from the lead (diff). It's unclear why you're "unhappy" with the See also section, but I find the links useful, directly related to the topic, and on par with WP:SEEALSO. I prefer the note where it is at, in the Notes section. The sources in the Further reading section are in full compliance with WP:FURTHERREADING, and can assist readers to learn more about the article subject. I removed the ref markup within them as suggested above (diff), although this was not necessary for the article to qualify for DYK. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Please don't misunderstand; there are criteria for DYK, and there helpful comments, at least trying to be helpful. Thanks for action, I would approve even without, but working for quality ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: how about "pervaded"? Yoninah (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Other thought: we have to paraphrase in the article, but couldn't we use what the source says in the hook? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

"Pervaded" and "permeated" are both fine by me. I prefer "permeated". I'd rather do this than using a quote in the hook. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)