Template:Did you know nominations/Pasticciotto

From blackwiki
< Template:Did you know nominations
Revision as of 09:44, 25 October 2015 by imported>LavaBaron
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Pasticciotto

Ricotta-filled pasticciotto
Ricotta-filled pasticciotto
  • ... that one variety of pasticciotto pastry is filled with meat but topped with sugar?

Created by GrammarFascist (talk). Self-nominated at 05:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC).

Symbol question.svg 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. Face-smile.svg
  • 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)
Meat-filled pasticciotto
Meat-filled pasticciotto
Symbol confirmed.svg 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)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg 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)
Symbol confirmed.svg 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)