The following discussion 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
Hawkeye7 (
talk) 20:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
New, long enough, within policy, QPQ good, hook copyedited. Refs are an issue: What is "item 2467" in Ref1? If it's a ref to the book, it doesn't say the book's title. Ref2's link is an unreliable source. I'd accept the newspaper NYT source as AGF but you'd have to read the original or a real archive of it instead of what a random site claims to be a NYT article. Ref3, foodtimeline, is a quote of the NYT article and is also an
unreliable site. Ref 4, here you go, this could be the link for the ref2, or just scrap the ref2 and use ref4 instead and list its "agency" (
Template:Citenews#Publisher) as the NYT. Ref5 is good but the citation needs to be accurate. Ref6 could also be the link for ref2, since it's the actual reference (just make sure the titles and content match). Basically, this is good stuff, but the refs need to be consolidated and with proper citations. Also some sources spell it as Mega Bite instead of Megabite, and I haven't seen any source use the accent over the "e" in Cafe. Is that referenced? czar·· 21:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
2) Ref 2 removed since ref 6 (now ref 3) covers it.
3) Removed PDF Gardiner source.
4) Changed name to IDT Megabite Cafe to remove the accent over the "e" in Café.
Will these changes work?--
Doug Coldwell (
talk) 22:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Definitely improved, but not all the way yet. Current refs two and three appear to be identical at first glance. If two is no different from three, use three as it's the official NYT archive that was reprinted in the Star-Banner. Also ref1 still has an
unclear citation style (I didn't tag the article, though—would be overkill). Do you see what I mean, that its punctuation and style does not match that of the other citations? Everything else okay czar·· 23:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Do I have it correct now?--
Doug Coldwell (
talk) 23:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Added the finishing touches, and good to go! Nice work czar·· 03:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion 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
Hawkeye7 (
talk) 20:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
New, long enough, within policy, QPQ good, hook copyedited. Refs are an issue: What is "item 2467" in Ref1? If it's a ref to the book, it doesn't say the book's title. Ref2's link is an unreliable source. I'd accept the newspaper NYT source as AGF but you'd have to read the original or a real archive of it instead of what a random site claims to be a NYT article. Ref3, foodtimeline, is a quote of the NYT article and is also an
unreliable site. Ref 4, here you go, this could be the link for the ref2, or just scrap the ref2 and use ref4 instead and list its "agency" (
Template:Citenews#Publisher) as the NYT. Ref5 is good but the citation needs to be accurate. Ref6 could also be the link for ref2, since it's the actual reference (just make sure the titles and content match). Basically, this is good stuff, but the refs need to be consolidated and with proper citations. Also some sources spell it as Mega Bite instead of Megabite, and I haven't seen any source use the accent over the "e" in Cafe. Is that referenced? czar·· 21:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
2) Ref 2 removed since ref 6 (now ref 3) covers it.
3) Removed PDF Gardiner source.
4) Changed name to IDT Megabite Cafe to remove the accent over the "e" in Café.
Will these changes work?--
Doug Coldwell (
talk) 22:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Definitely improved, but not all the way yet. Current refs two and three appear to be identical at first glance. If two is no different from three, use three as it's the official NYT archive that was reprinted in the Star-Banner. Also ref1 still has an
unclear citation style (I didn't tag the article, though—would be overkill). Do you see what I mean, that its punctuation and style does not match that of the other citations? Everything else okay czar·· 23:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Do I have it correct now?--
Doug Coldwell (
talk) 23:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Added the finishing touches, and good to go! Nice work czar·· 03:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)