Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/One Chun

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 PrimalMustelid talk 23:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

One Chun

(
)
  • ... that One Chun, a Michelin Guide Bib Gourmand restaurant, has black-and-white televisions, transistor radios, and antique clocks on its walls? Source: Srivilai, Kasidit (2021-11-05). "Behind The Bib: Retro Decor Meets Phuket Flavours At One Chun. Retro decor harkens authentic Phuket tastes, plus great locally sourced ingredients". Michelin Guide. Archived from the original on 2024-03-02. Retrieved 2024-03-02.

    The article notes: "Chessadawan said while showing us a beautiful wall adorned with old clocks, transistor radios, and black-and-white television sets."

Created by Cunard (talk). Self-nominated at 10:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/One Chun; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: A finely put together article improving the coverage of food, Southeast Asia, and women. The article was new enough at the time of nomination, and it's long enough. There's a source at the end of every paragraph or quote (at the end of most sentences), and the hook is cited at its sentence. Earwig's detector comes back 20%, which from my reading is attributable to the quotations. The hook is interesting, since a Fifties aesthetic and Michelin fine-dining don't usually go together in one's mind. QPQ is done as well. There are only two minor problems—@Cunard: first, the text of the Time Out Shanghai article on its own doesn't actually make that Bai Liang Phad Khai includes eggs—it only makes clear the leaves and shrimp (the images don't load from where I'm reading, so if the information was in the images, that may be why I'm having trouble verifying that bit). Second, I think the summarization of the Frommer's source to say that both Raya and One Chun serve roast duck and crab curry is slightly off. Frommer's states, Raya’s sister restaurant, One Chun, also serves the famous crab curry along with a host of cheaper Thai classics, like roasted duck in red curry. The wording of "along with a host of cheaper Thai classics" I think means that while roasted duck is one of the "cheaper Thai classics" that One Chun also serves, alongside the crab curry that both Raya and One Chun serves (meaning Frommer's verifies that One Chun serves roast duck, but not that Raya serves roast duck; it does verify that both serve crab curry). If these minor problems are fixed, I will happily approve the nomination. Feel free to ping me when it's ready. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Excellent! With these matters resolved, I am happy to approve the nomination. Thanks for your contribution to Wikipedia! Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
  • @Hydrangeans: A finely put together article improving the coverage of food, Southeast Asia, and women Have to disagree with you there, it reads like a press release to me. In fact when I came across it as part of NPP I had to check it wasn't written by a COI editor. Regards John B123 (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
    • I agree and have tagged it as such. It's quite funny how the "Reception" section contains less reception (all positive, of course) than has beem inserted indiscriminately throughout the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
      • I revised the article to shorten and have fewer quotes as recommended by Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Impartial tone, which says, "Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial, formal tone." I hope this addresses editors' concerns. As the Wikipedia's article author, I do not have a conflict of interest with the restaurant. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight says, "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources". I have complied with this policy by fairly representing reliable sources' viewpoint about the restaurant. Regarding "all positive, of course", I conducted an exhaustive search for reliable sources about the restaurant. I did not find negative coverage of the restaurant in reliable sources. Adding negative information about the restaurant to the article when it is unsupported by reliable sources would violate the neutral point of view and verifiability policies. Cunard (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
        • The minor edits you have made do nothing to make the article less like an advert or press release. IMHO the article needs a complete rewrite. The first major issue is the in-depth coverage of the menu. A good part of the lead and the largest section of the article is devoted to the menu. If you look at similar restaurant articles, the menu only takes up a paragraph at the most. Secondly, it needs to be written more objectively with less 'bigging up'. For example, Thai starlets in the source becomes Thai celebrities in the article. John B123 (talk) 23:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
          • Two concerns have been raised: (1) the menu section is too long and (2) the article is not written neutrally. I find the premise of (1) to be inaccurate. I welcome feedback about (2).
            1. If you look at similar restaurant articles, the menu only takes up a paragraph at the most. – I do not know what the "similar" qualifier in "similar restaurant articles" means. There are featured articles and good articles about restaurants with "Menu" or "Cuisine" sections that are three or more paragraphs long. The only featured article about a restaurant is Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant, which has a three-paragraph "Food" section. There are numerous good articles about restaurants. There are good articles with a five-paragraph "Cuisine" section, a four-paragraph "Cuisine" section, a four-paragraph "Menu" section, a three-paragraph "Menu" section, and a three-paragraph "Cuisine" section.

              Alongside a restaurant's history and decor, its menu and cuisine is a very important part of its background. One Chun's "Dishes" section is three paragraphs, while its "History" and "Decor" sections are much smaller. That is because reliable sources spend considerable space discussing and critiquing the restaurant's dishes, much more than they discuss other aspects of the restaurant like its history and decor. As such, a three-paragraph summary of what the sources said about the menu—and three sentences in the lead—complies with the due weight policy.

              Secondly, it needs to be written more objectively with less 'bigging up'. For example, Thai starlets in the source becomes Thai celebrities in the article. – when revising the article based on comments in this DYK nomination, I paraphrased the "Thai starlets" quote to be "Thai celebrities". As "celebrities" is "bigging up" compared to "starlets", I've modified the sentence to use "Thai starlets" again.

              The sources are universally positive about the restaurants' dishes and decor. I believe the article complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in fairly representing the sources' viewpoints. I do not believe "the article needs a complete rewrite". I sometimes overlook things like the "Thai celebrities" issue you pointed out, so I welcome specific feedback about how to make it "written more objectively with less 'bigging up'".

            Cunard (talk) 07:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
            • The articles you link to are generally larger articles, so the menu/cuisine sections form a proportionally smaller part of the article. Reliable sources spend considerable space discussing and critiquing the restaurant's dishes, most of the references in the Dishes section are short mentions in 'Where to eat in Phuket' type articles or directory entries such as Lonely Planet. WP:NOTPRICE seems to be applicable here: An article should not include product pricing or availability information (which can vary widely with time and location) unless there is an independent source and encyclopedic significance for the mention, which may be indicated by mainstream media sources or books (not just product reviews) providing commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. John B123 (talk) 08:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
              • For the featured and good articles I linked, there is plenty of coverage about the restaurants' history, decor, and menu, so the menu sections must "form a proportionally smaller part of [those] article[s]". For this article, there is less coverage about the restaurant's history and decor but more coverage about the menu, so the menu must form a proportionally larger part of the article. The decision of how much to cover should be done on a case-by-case basis reliant on how much reliable sources cover each area. The length of this Wikipedia article's menu section does not make it violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

                WP:NOTPRICE says:

                A resource for conducting business. Neither articles nor their associated talk pages are for conducting the business of the topic of the article. Listings to be avoided include, but are not limited to: business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, store locations, contact information, patent filings, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions. An article should not include product pricing or availability information (which can vary widely with time and location) unless there is an independent source and encyclopedic significance for the mention, which may be indicated by mainstream media sources or books (not just product reviews) providing commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare prices and availability of competing products or a single product from different vendors. Lists of creative works are permitted. Thus, for example, Wikipedia should not include a list of all books published by HarperCollins, but may include a bibliography of books written by HarperCollins author Veronica Roth.

                The information in the "Dishes" section is not a "A resource for conducting business". It is not a listing of "products and services". It is not "product pricing or availability information".

                It is information from "independent source[s]" with "encyclopedic significance for the mention". It is information from "mainstream media sources or books (not just product reviews) providing commentary on these details instead of just passing mention". The "Where to eat in Phuket" type articles and the Lonely Planet book are not "just passing mention[s]". They provide a few sentences to a paragraph about the subject that includes "commentary on these details".

                This is why I provided in-text attribution of reviewers' commentary contextualising and critiquing the dishes.

                If the first paragraph of the "Dishes" section was written like this, it would violate WP:NOTPRICE for being a listing without any "commentary on details":

                "One's Chun's dishes include crab curry made with coconut milk, Nam Prik Goong Siab, Mu Hong, and roasted red pork."

                But the first paragraph of the "Dishes" section includes "commentary on details" through contextualisation and critiquing so does not violate WP:NOTPRICE:

                Lonely Planet's Isabella Noble praised the restaurant for its seafood, citing its crab curry made with coconut milk. One Chun serves Nam Prik Goong Siab, a spicy entrée made with shrimp paste and containing dried shrimp that has been deep fried, giving it a "savoury crunchiness". The dish includes vegetables to alleviate the peppery taste, which Kasidit Srivilai of the Michelin Guide said "balanc[es] the mixture's saltiness and sourness". Two meat dishes are Mu Hong, a pork belly stew made with low-temperature cooking and flavored with the spices pepper and garlic, and roasted red pork.

                The "Cuisine" section of the good article Gage and Tollner discusses in substantial detail that restaurant's cuisine and menu throughout the years, while its reception section includes critics' commentary about the cuisine and service. For the "Dishes" section of One Chun's Wikipedia article, I chose to have the menu section include critics' commentary. This is up to editorial discretion. Both approaches are policy-compliant editorial decisions.

                Cunard (talk) 09:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

                • I note we have gone from reliable sources spend considerable space discussing and critiquing the restaurant's dishes to provide a few sentences to a paragraph about the subject that includes "commentary on these details", which is still overgenerous in a lot of cases. In my view the Dishes section is availability information so WP:NOTPRICE is applicable. No matter how you try and fit WP policies and guidelines to what has been written, the article still comes as a promotion for the restaurant. John B123 (talk) 10:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
                  • There is no conflict between my two statements. The "Where to eat in Phuket" type articles and the Lonely Planet book provide a few sentences to a paragraph about the restaurant's dishes. Collectively, the reliable sources spend considerable space discussing and critiquing the restaurant's dishes. I explained why WP:NOTPRICE is not violated: "availability information" does not violate the policy when there is "there is an independent source and encyclopedic significance for the mention". I linked to a featured article and multiple good articles about restaurants that discuss their menu in a similar way to this article, showing this is standard practice for restaurant articles.

                    Although I consider the WP:NOTPRICE concern to be unsupported by policy or practice, I remain open to feedback about specific parts of the article that can be "written more objectively with less 'bigging up'". Cunard (talk) 11:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

                    • Adding 'collectively' before 'the reliable sources spend considerable space discussing and critiquing the restaurant's dishes' makes a huge difference to the meaning of your original statement. You explanation of why you think WP:NOTPRICE is not applicable is fundamentally flawed. Firstly, phrases like another crab dish the restaurant serves is crab spring rolls require a huge stretch of the imagination to be thought of as of encyclopedic significance. Secondly, many of the sources used just give the restaurant a passing mention.
I'd draw your attention to the SNG for restaurants WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS. This establishes the types of reviews that are 'significant' and can be included towards notability. Most of the reviews used in the article fail the test to be 'significant'. The SNG goes on to cover independent reviews and states Often, sponsored nature of a review is not disclosed and not immediately apparent. In particular, a strong indication of a sponsored or other relationship is a review that is excessively positive or negative Later it is stated Once notability is established, non-independent reviews may be used to verify some non-controversial facts in the article (e.g. number of employees, number of tables in a restaurant, product models) This suggests to me that reviews needs to be demonstrably independent or just used to verify non-controversial facts. What somebody thinks is a good dish is subjective and therefore potentially controversial. John B123 (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
                      • It has the same effect with regard to proportionality of coverage within the article. Regarding WP:NOTPRICE, I've removed the sentence about crab rolls. I consider the sources in the article to be independent reliable sources. Which sources do you consider to be possibly sponsored or "non-independent reviews" that are being used to describe "What somebody thinks is a good dish"? Cunard (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Looking at the sources, and in the same order as the refs section:
  1. Manager Daily - looks like a paid piece, no author given
  2. Michelin Guide - Sound source
  3. SMH - Brief mention extracted from Michelin Guide
  4. Thansettakij - Churnalism based on the Michelin Guide
  5. Thaiger - Obvious churnalism, the author, Ye Man Pyae, seems to specialise in 'best of' articles ranging from eateries to nursery schools to best best places to teach English in Thailand (teach not learn)
  6. BK - Short listing, nothing there that's not on One Chun's Facebook which it links to
  7. Lonely Planet Thailand - Single sentence listing
  8. Lonely Planet Phuket - 3 sentence listing
  9. Michelin Guide - Sound source
  10. Manager Daily - Probably churnalism, no author given
  11. SMH - single sentence mention
  12. Nation - 2 sentence listing
  13. Michelin Guide - Sound source
  14. Manager Daily - Passing mention (half a sentence)
  15. Michelin Guide - Sound source
  16. Lifestyle Asia - Looks independent, information here that doesn't seem to be elsewhere. Probably too short to count towards notability, but still a reliable source IMHO.
  17. Timeout - Looks independent, but again probably too short to count towards notability
  18. CNN - Passing mention
  19. Manager Daily - Passing mention
  20. Frommers - Passing mention in (paid?) article about sister restaurant Raya
  21. Manager Daily - 7 sentences in a long article promting the Nissan X-Trail. As this an obvious promotional article, I doubt it would be considered a reliable source.
  22. Australian - Passing mention
  23. Khaosod - Passing mention
John B123 (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Having your specific concerns enumerated is very helpful. Thank you for taking the time to review all the sources. Some of the sources were listed as short or being churnalism for reporting on the Michelin Guide Bib Gourmand designation. I do not consider either of those attributes as causing those sources to be unreliable so will not go into detail on those sources. The reliability of three sources—Manager Daily, Frommer's, and The Thaiger—was questioned, so I will discuss them below.

Manager Daily is a national business newspaper with a circulation of 300,000 in 2016. From my observations and a review of its articles, Manager Daily generally does not use bylines. A lack of bylines is standard for Thai journalism. According to this Routledge book, "Front-page political news stories in Thai language newspapers never carried a by-line; indeed, by-lines were rare for news stories anywhere in the Thai press, other than some weekly magazines. In part this reflected Thai traditions of journalism, but it also derived from the fact that these stories really did not have a single author."

I consider Manager Daily to be a reputable newspaper. From this working paper by Ramkhamhaeng University faculty member Suchart Sriyaranya:

Some newspapers pay a high monthly salary or even pay more for one article than their competitors. Many well-known academics write as columnists in Manager Daily on this basis. Manager Daily rose to become the most successful newspaper during an era of economic boom in Thailand. It was started as a weekly business magazine and later developed to be a daily newspaper. Its editorial direction is different from that of Matichon Daily. While Matichon represents mostly progressive readers, Manager Daily has targeted a rising group of younger urban professionals or Yuppies who work in business sectors. As it can offer the good-quality daily articles written by many famous intellectuals, as well as provide the news contents in focussing in the business sectors, Manager has succeeded in combining its globalized image with the contributions of academics and information demands of bussiness groups.

These articles are positive restaurant reviews written by Manager Daily's travel and food team. I do not think Manager Daily would publish sponsored articles without disclosure.

Frommer's is a reputable travel guide publisher. The Frommer's review rated One Chun's sister restaurant two out of three stars. I think a paid article would give three out of three stars, not two.

The Thaiger is a source with a less established history and the concerns about the author, a junior journalist, are valid. I've removed the content based on The Thaiger from the article.

Cunard (talk) 06:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Are you sure that the website mgronline.com is the same as Manager Daily? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Manager Daily's website is mgronline.com. This article (citation details) from the Chulalongkorn University Journal of Social Sciences says:

"'Somsak' Poet Sun Phak Ko Mo Mo Khorat Chuenmuen-Prachachon Nakrop Mue Top Ruam Nueangnaen." ['Somsak' Opens the Party’s Branch. Committee Happy–A Lot of Hand-Clapping People Joined the Event]. 2009. Manager Daily Online, August 10. Accessed February 21, 2016. https://mgronline.com/local/detail/9520000090638. (in Thai)

This article from S&P Global says:

The Bank of Thailand and the Thai Ministry of Finance allowed U.S.-based PayPal Inc. to continue providing services for Thai customers until the end of 2022, Manager Daily reported.

Cunard (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
The problem with sources here is well illustrated by Belinda Jackson's article in the Sydney Morning Herald, Things to do in Phuket, Thailand: One day three ways, in which she states: Lunch is a chance to rub shoulders with Thai starlets at One Chun restaurant: order the rich, creamy crab and coconut curry. Does this mean she has visited One Chun and ate the curry with Thai starlets, or does this mean she has read somewhere about this? Given the number of articles she writes, I doubt the Herald's budget stretches to jetting her around the world almost continually to write these articles. If she hasn't visited One Chun, where did she get the information from? We have no idea whether these sources were reliable or not, nor do we know when the source(s) she used were published. The article was written in 2015, 9 years ago, although the information may have come from before then. As 'in' places change over time, we have no way of knowing if what was correct 9+ years ago is still correct today, the Thai starlets may well now frequent a different establishments. Restaurants change their menus, so rich, creamy crab and coconut curry may no longer be available. (When I lived in the UK, our local Jamie Oliver restaurant changed it's menu several times a year.)
Politics and the Press in Thailand: Media Machinations that you referred to above goes on to give criticism of the Thai practice of using multiple authors to produce articles, leading to poor articles. Although the criticism was specifically about political articles in Thai Rath, the shortcomings raised would seem to be equally valid for other article types and publications, including Manager Daily, using this type of reporting.
John B123 (talk) 07:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Belinda Jackson is a travel writer for The Sydney Morning Herald, Australia's newspaper of record. From Belinda Jackson's website, "I have travelled every continent and lived on three". She has written numerous pieces about Thailand for The Sydney Morning Herald (1, 2, 3, and 4). It is clear from her article that One Chun is one of the places she visited during her time in Phuket. The feedback about the information being nine years old is noted. I've updated the article to add the date this statement was made.

Regarding Politics and the Press in Thailand: Media Machinations, the book says:

Political rewriters were not always satisfied with the quality of news material sent in to them by reporters. In an internal memo sent to all members of the political team on 24 April 1995, Weerajak Konthong (better known as the columnist 'Chalam Khiao', or Green Shark) set out his criticisms of reporters' material. The memo contained five points. Weerajak first observed that since parliament was opening, politics was becoming more complex, and there were lots of different issues every day. People who wanted to get into the news were speaking at great length, but the problem Thai Rath faced was that the newspaper did not have much space for political news.

The second point from Konthong's memo: "Political news had to be tightly written, and reporters had to be news-hounds (suakhao, literally news-tigers) rather than simply sending in what they taperecorded." The third point: "it was a shame reporters felt they did not know what the main issue was, and sent in long stories accordingly". The fourth point: "reporters might well ask why it was that rewriters did not do the job of shortening their material". The fifth point: "reporters needed to read the newspapers before starting work, so that they would be familiar with the development of particular issues".

I do not think that any of these points detract from the reliability of the Manager Daily reviews. The reviews show a good understanding of the restaurant and are not "simply sending in what they taperecorded".

Cunard (talk) 09:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I think a new review is necessary for an uninvolved opinion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
I too worry about the amount of content that could date. Dishes go on and off menus all the time. If any of them should be mentioned, they should be attributed. There are a few other sentences that stand out; "All the dishes are beautifully cooked using herbs and freshest seafood" is something I'd expect to see on a press release, "When it is the right season" tells me the square root of jack.--Launchballer 09:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
The "All the dishes are beautifully cooked using herbs and freshest seafood" sentence was quoted from the Michelin Guide. I've removed it. Thank you for the feedback. I've implemented your feedback. Cunard (talk) 10:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Apologies, I kept rewording my sentence. I think "CNN travel writer Kate Springer listed One Chun among Phuket Town's "top restaurants".[5]" should also come out as well. Arguably the rest of the History section should be merged with the 'Decor and ambience' section and put in chronological order, but that's not really a DYK issue. Once you've done that, you can take the tag off and I'll approve this.--Launchballer 20:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for reviewing the article again. I've removed that sentence. It's unclear to me how to combine the "History" and "Decor and ambience" sections owing to their focus on different aspects of the restaurant, so I've left the two sections as is for now. Cunard (talk) 05:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Let's roll.--Launchballer 09:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Noting here that I don't plan on promoting this as it will likely get pulled up at WT:DYK or ERRORS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
I just checked the source. It says "wall", not "walls", and "old clocks" rather than "antique clocks". I propose the following:
ALT1: ... that upon awarding One Chun a Bib Gourmand, the Michelin Guide complimented a "wall adorned with old clocks, transistor radios and black-and-white television sets"?--Launchballer 12:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
@Launchballer: thank you for pointing this out. I've modified the article. The Michelin Guide article calls the decorations "beautiful", so the hook's wording of "complimented" is accurate. I like this hook, but I'm worried that editors would consider that hook too positive and promotional owing to the concerns raised in this discussion. Here is an alternative hook:

ALT2: ... that One Chun, a Michelin Guide Bib Gourmand restaurant, has black-and-white televisions, transistor radios, and aged clocks on a wall?

Cunard (talk) 10:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I only just saw this because I don't tend to check the Approved list with any regularity. I'm not comfortable with 'has', as it could change, and I'm not really convinced 'aged' means the same as 'old'.
  • ALT3: ... that One Chun, when awarded a Michelin Guide Bib Gourmand, had black-and-white televisions, transistor radios, and old clocks on a wall?--Launchballer 13:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Let's get a new reviewer in here to look at the ALT hooks, since one was proposed by the previous reviewer (I've struck the previously approved original hook due to the issues raised, which leaves ALT1, ALT2 and ALT3). Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
    ALT1a: ... that upon awarding One Chun a Bib Gourmand, the Michelin Guide highlighted a "wall adorned with old clocks, transistor radios and black-and-white television sets"?
  • I will approve Alt2, just to move this along. However, I think Alt1 could be a better choice and am offering Alt1a for the reviewer. --evrik (talk) 21:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/One_Chun&oldid=1220632579"