- 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 97198 (talk) 10:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Pink slime edit
... that in March 2013, an estimated five percent of ground beef in the United States contained lean finely textured beef, also known as pink slime?
- Reviewed: Margot Henderson
Improved to Good Article status by Northamerica1000 (talk). Self-nominated at 15:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC).
- Recent GA (great work, NA), long enough, hook cited, etc. etc. But, Northamerica1000, let me ask you two things. The Time article for the hook, it explains how that percentage has dropped from 70 to 5 because of bad press. That's an interesting fact. Second, why not stick a nice, pink, slimy image in here? Drmies (talk) 16:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Drmies: Check out the alt below. The image used in the article is likely not usable on Main page, because it's a copyrighted screen shot (see WP:NFCCP). North America1000 16:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- ALT1: ... that lean finely textured beef, also known as pink slime, in the U.S ground beef supply declined from 70% in March 2012 to around 5% in March 2013, in part due to news media coverage about it?
- OK--looks good, if you cut the last "about the food additive" part, and if you add this phrasing to the article. You don't need it, and the hook is too long with it. I see you're right about the image, which is a shame; I suppose we can't use File:Pink Tapioca Slime (1042582249).jpg and say "for illustrative purposes". Drmies (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
