- 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 Allen3 talk 12:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Pasticciotto edit
Ricotta-filled pasticciotto
- ... that one variety of pasticciotto pastry is filled with meat but topped with sugar?
- ALT1:
... that pasticciotto pastry may take their name from their creator's view of them as a "mishap"? - Reviewed: That We Can Play
- ALT1:
Created by GrammarFascist (talk). Self-nominated at 05:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC).
- I seem to have messed up adding an image to this nomination. The file is File:Pasticciotto filled with ricotta cheese.jpg and the caption is "Ricotta-filled pasticciotto", if it's not too late. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 05:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Nice dish, on good sources. Looking at Pasticcio, "mishap" seems not to be the only translation of the term, - please check that for the article, - I would not approve it for a hook. Article: it's a filled pastry, no? Why "type"? How about crust first, explain lard vs. olive oil, then filling. Don't recall "composition" for food ;) - perhaps not so many headers anyway? Please have Easter pastry with a source in the body of the article. Mention Puglia,Sicily and Naples in the lead? No problem with a late image, but I think the sugar-coated one would illustrate the hook better. - Is this your fourth nomination? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hello Gerda Arendt, thanks for reviewing this article. (I think you are reviewing it? Or do you just have comments?)
- "Mishap" is the only translation given as being related to the name of this pastry by a source; I think trying to relate it to similar words might constitute original research. After all, for all we know it's a case similar to "fluke" in English, which can have a meaning similar to "mishap" but can also mean a sea creature's fin, or a type of parasite... but that doesn't mean every use of the word is intended to invoke all those meanings. Also, I did some additional Googling and did not find any other meaning or origin given for the word pasticciotto.
- "Type" because there are many different kinds of filled Italian pastries — two others, cannoli and sfogliatelle, are mentioned in the article — of which pasticciotti are only one type.
- Sure, I don't see any reason not to put crust before filling. Olive oil isn't used, though, from the research I did; just butter or lard.
- I'm not sure I understand your objection to "Composition". Are you asking for a synonym? Or do you think Crust and Fillings should each be top-level headers without an umbrella heading?
- The main reason I didn't choose the meat image even with that being the primary hook was that I didn't think the image would be intelligible at 100 pixels, even after I cropped the original. I'm willing to be convinced, though.
- I've had 3 DYKs make it to the front page. I have more than one I've nominated that's stalled. I expected I would just stick the notation about one or another of the several reviews I've "banked" onto whatever's left on this page once a fifth nomination of mine enters staging. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 20:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hello Gerda Arendt, thanks for reviewing this article. (I think you are reviewing it? Or do you just have comments?)
Meat-filled pasticciotto
Thank you, understand better. My comments are just ideas you can take or leave. Call me Gerda ;) - Still think the other image would be better, because the hook would explain it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Just noticed this had the wrong summary icon on it. It does still need a full review. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 15:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- This was fully reviewed, I tell you when something is wrong. If you like: long enough, timely nominated, hook short enough and interesting, good sources for content and hook, no apparent close paraphrasing found, images licensed and a good illustration, - all this was expressed in the tick. Thanks for having done a review although you possibly didn't have to. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oops! Sorry for having misunderstood you, Gerda. I asked whether you were reviewing or just commenting, and when you said "My comments are just ideas you can take or leave" I took that as meaning it was not a review. Better to pull a hook that turns out to be okay than send one to prep without a full review, right? And by my count, I do owe a QPQ for this nomination, so if you wouldn't mind double-checking that review, I'd appreciate it. (I like to do reviews ahead of when I need them.) Otherwise please note the nomination as needing another reviewer to check the QPQ. Thanks, GrammarFascist contribstalk 20:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- The review is fine. My time is limited ;) - Many things in this project are needlessly complicated, - let's not add to that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Excellent point, Gerda Arendt. Hopefully we can get the RFC in DYK Talk passed so this type of bureaucratic red tape can get trimmed a bit. LavaBaron (talk) 09:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Looks to me like Gerda meant that the QPQ review was fine, actually. I'm sure she'll correct me if I've misunderstood her again. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 22:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- The review is fine. My time is limited ;) - Many things in this project are needlessly complicated, - let's not add to that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oops! Sorry for having misunderstood you, Gerda. I asked whether you were reviewing or just commenting, and when you said "My comments are just ideas you can take or leave" I took that as meaning it was not a review. Better to pull a hook that turns out to be okay than send one to prep without a full review, right? And by my count, I do owe a QPQ for this nomination, so if you wouldn't mind double-checking that review, I'd appreciate it. (I like to do reviews ahead of when I need them.) Otherwise please note the nomination as needing another reviewer to check the QPQ. Thanks, GrammarFascist contribstalk 20:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
