Talk:Handwich

Latest comment: 1 year ago by BorgQueen in topic Did you know nomination

Did you know nomination

edit
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: rejected by BorgQueen (talk01:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Created by AdoTang (talk). Self-nominated at 20:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Handwich; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited:   - see below
  • Interesting:  
QPQ: Done.

Overall:   Article is new enough, long enough and neutral. I am, however, concerned about the reliability of Parkeology, Inside the Magic, Mental Floss, Main Street Gazette, WDW News Today, WDW Magic, The Disney Food Blog, The Disney Blog Disney Parks Blog and RetroWDW. The quote from Parkeology also shows a 47.1% similarity per the copyvio detector, so that should probably be reduced. I find ALT0 uninteresting, but the rest are good. However, ALT1 is not sourced in the article, and ALT2 and ALT3 do not have sources supporting them at the end of their sentences. QPQ has been done. Pamzeis (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

  • I can't address all of these right now, but I must say that I don't really have a choice to use other sources for this article. It's not like CNN or The New York Times is going to cover the history of an obscure Disney sandwich, and any really solid sources—such as those used in the Defunctland video, or that Disney World cookbook—are more or less inaccessible to me. Yes, the article relies on Disney fansites and a YouTube video, but they're the only sources that would ever cover this, and they're the only sources I can find. But anyway, for now, I'll take a look at that copyvio quote. AdoTang (talk) 13:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
  Hi, sorry about this, but I may not have time to complete this review. I'd like to request a new reviewer for this. Apologies for any inconvenience caused. Pamzeis (talk) 04:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
  • Cited:  
  • Interesting:  
QPQ: Done.

Overall:   I saw this in the WP:APARKS feed and have heard about it through the Defunctland video so I will pick it up. At the time the article was new enough and long enough (now about 6,800 characters). Earwig cites no likely matches for close paraphrasing or plagiarism. The article has sourcing on all points and covers the topic well. What does hinder me from giving this a pass or a maybe consideration is the sources as addressed above. I would not consider "Inside the Magic" or "WDW News Today" as reliable sources at all because of their history with flashy clickbait content, bias, and lack of integrity. Disney blogs are generally not reliable, either. The Defunctland video, while fun and informative, does not clearly cite some of its sources, supplementing such with zoomed-in shots of supposed sources that I cannot personally verify.

Based on the sources the article would have to go through a revision to meet reliability standards. Sources I am sure might be out there to prove the reliability and content of this article, but at this time in good faith, I cannot pass this. Adog (TalkCont) 15:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply