Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Deep fried egg

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 SL93 (talk) 00:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Deep fried egg

(
)

Created by Northamerica1000 (talk). Self-nominated at 00:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC).

  • I am not going to review this; it looks to me like this is another overdeveloped article, really a nothing-burger. But here is the thing: scrap ALT1. Northamerica, scrap it. You know as well as I do that there is nothing extra dangerous about deep-frying eggs compared to other things. Your one source says "be careful", your other sources also says nothing about danger. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Regarding "your other sources also says nothing about danger" above, this source used in the article, and also included in the Alt nomination sources atop as "p2", directly states, "rather than adding the eggs directly into the hot deep oil, which can be rather dangerous..." (underline emphasis mine). North America1000 01:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the nom that ALT2 is probably the most eye-catching thing here. However, the wording feels off to me. Shouldn't it be something like "Some sources state that, in Thai folklore..." or something like that? It seems that the "some sources" here are referring to the claims about Thai folklore. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: Alt 2 is worded the way it is per the referenced note in the article, which states, "As the story goes (and, like most stories of this type, its origins and authenticity are often disputed...". As proposed in the comment directly above, the hook would then have two instances of the word "that" in it, reading as, "... that in Thai folklore some sources state that..." I view this as unnecessary wordiness, and Alt 2 is perfectly comprehensible; it's only referring to one point, not two. Yes, some sources refer to the claim about Thai folklore. I'm not seeing a problem in Alt 2, and making it more wordy and ambiguous is less intriguing. North America1000 12:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The wording sounds really off to me. I understand that it's how it's written in the article, but it doesn't seem to match the sources I checked. ALT3 doesn't allay my concerns either. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:54, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Seems like you don't like the "some sources state that" part. North America1000 13:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Here's a new take:
  • Alt 4: ... that in Thai folklore "son-in-law eggs", a deep fried egg dish, may be served as a warning?
Now that's a bit imprecise, since the article and its sources claim that the practice was according to some sources and it was an alleged origin. Maybe just start the hook with some variant of "According to..."? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
  • @Narutolovehinata5: Hooks are typically supposed to be a bit ambiguous, to create intrigue and "hook" readers to then read the article. That's why they're called hooks here. Here's more alts below. North America1000 06:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Alt 5: ... that according to some accounts, in Thai folklore "son-in-law eggs", a deep fried egg dish, may be served as a warning?
  • Alt 6: ... that per some accounts, in Thai folklore "son-in-law eggs", a deep fried egg dish, may be served as a warning?
  • As for the nomination itself, the article meets guidelines and a QPQ has been done. The hook fact is mentioned in the article and verified in the sources. The issue here isn't the hook fact (I think the fact is soid), it's really the wording. With that said, I think either ALT5 or ALT6 might work but both need a bit of copyediting to make them flow better (missing commas and all that). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
  • @Narutolovehinata5: Another alt below. I like Alt6 above, and in my opinion the commas are fine in it, but perhaps this is what you are looking for. North America1000 12:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Alt7: ... that per some accounts, in Thai folklore, "son-in-law eggs", a deep fried egg dish, may be served as a warning?
  • Yes, I think ALT7 is what I had closest to what I was thinking of. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
  • @Theleekycauldron: I don't think so: since the hook is talking about Thai folklore it does not have to be a parenthetical statement. It *could* have a comma to make it parenthetical, but in this case the comma would do more harm to the flow than good. Z1720 (talk) 12:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Readding tick for ALT9, I like this hook as it is clear wording. For the rest of the review, see above. Z1720 (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Deep_fried_egg&oldid=1099293440"