Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Old-fashioned doughnut/1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Old-fashioned doughnut[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Keep "Good Article" rating. Article has been improved during the course of this reassessment. Thanks to all editors involved. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Original GA review didn't address the criteria appropriately. Specifically, I think this article fails GACR 3, as it is not sufficiently broad in its coverage and leaves out several main aspects of the topic.

I came to this article because I was interested in finding out why they are called "old-fashioned", but there is almost nothing about etymology, history, cultural impact etc. The article is also very Americocentric: I grew up in Ireland, where I don't recall ever seeing such a doughnut (even in imported media), and so I got the impression it was a Japanese invention. I don't doubt that it actually originates in America, but that kind of information should definitely be in the article. The only proper names I see are the names of several American cities and corporations in the "Variations" section. Who invented the old-fashioned doughnut? Where? When? The article currently provides none of this information, but it really should have done so before being promoted to GA.

An article being woefully incomplete like this is to be expected, but GAs are supposed to be better.

I don't know how much work would be required to bring this article to legitimate GA status, but it's obvious that the article should not have passed the original GA review last year, so reverting the bad listing seems appropriate. Following the source-searching and hard work of Northamerica1000 to improve the article to address some of my concerns, it's clear that the amount of work needed to find sources that may or may not be able to address my concerns would be quite significant, if not impossible. I still think the "broad coverage" requirement means that it should address these issues in more detail than it currently does, and if the sources don't exist or can't be located then it may not be the kind of article that should be a GA. If this is a difference in interpretation and I'm being to subjective, then I'll agree to disagree and the article will not be delisted.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC) (Edited 07:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC) )[reply]

  • Article updated. Added a History section to explain the doughnut's origin in the United States. There is almost nothing available in online searches about the origin of the old-fashioned doughnut, but I will continue to search further. The article is "Americocentric" because the doughnut originated in the U.S. and almost all sources cover the topic from this perspective. It's unclear how one woujld surmise this as a Japanese invention; particularly since you state that the article is "Americocentric". There is no mention of Japan in the article at all. There is also no particular source coverage about this variety of doughnut's "cultural impact" or etymology, (as stated above). Wikipedia articles are based upon what sources state, but sources haven't covered its cultural impact or etymology. North America1000 08:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's unclear how one woujld surmise this as a Japanese invention If one grew up in a country where, if old-fashioned doughnuts even existed, they were extremely obscure, and never saw them mentioned in American films or TV shows, then moved to Japan where they are ubiquitous, that is a very easy thing to surmise. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have edited the article to address your concerns. A matter is that aspects of the topic you mention atop have received very little to no coverage in reliable sources. My goal is to improve the article to convince you to withdraw the nomination, but when sources are literally not available concerning the points you bring up, these points actually should not be included in the article, as per WP:V and WP:NOR. North America1000 09:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... the article as it stands is very short (easily the shortest GA I've seen) and I kind of suspect that if the kind of information I requested above can be written about it then ... well, I don't know. It's not a stub article at present, but I'm pretty sure WP:PERMASTUBs can't be GAs -- can PERMASHORTs be GAs? For me the title of the article begs the question "what is old-fashioned about them?" and I find it pretty hard to believe that no RSes have answered that question.
I'd rather you didn't pester me to "withdraw my nomination", though: I'm not going to change my opinion just because you say that you can't find reliable sources that provide the information that I think should be in the article, then this article can still be a GA if it turns out the community disagree with my opinion about what constitutes "address[ing] the main aspects of the topic".Rw
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I stated during the GA nomination discussion, "Note that there is not a great deal of extensive coverage about this topic", and really, there is not. Some is available, but it is limited; there's only so much. Try out the search options I have provided below. The article was fleshed out from all available sources at the time that were available in online searches. That's just the way it goes for some topics. While I agree that inclusion of the history of the topic is appropriate, there actually isn't anything available in online searches about the history of the old-fashioned doughnut itself, and I searched extensively. The only information available is about the history of cake doughnuts, which the old-fashioned variety is a type of.
On Wikipedia, it's typically not possible to address some particular aspects about a topic when no reliable sources exist that cover those particular aspects. It would be great to expand the article as such, but without sources, or only unreliable sources, it would only be speculation, rather than entirely fact-based. North America1000 10:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Advanced search for: 
"Old-fashioned doughnut"
In books/documents 
Google Books  · Questia
Internet Archive  · WorldCat
In the news 
Google News: recent  · archives

Questia  · New York Times
Los Angeles Times
Wall Street Journal · Washington Post
Financial Times · BBC News
The Age · The Hindu
News Limited · Fairfax Media

In academic/legal journals 
and reference works 
Google Scholar: academic  · legal

Microsoft Academic: new  · original
Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
PUBMED Central  · Questia
HighBeam  · Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages 
Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast
Images (free) 
Google  · Flickr
More 
Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources
The Wikipedia Library
Again, if the article is a "QUASIPERMASTUB" (for want of a better term) for which sufficient sources can't be found even to explain where the name comes from, or to explain why they don't exist in some developed countries wih significant American cultural influence but are everywhere in others, I don't think the topic is GA-material. We'll see if others disagree with me, but you're not going to change my mind by saying that sufficient sources can't be found. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't view this article as a stub at all. For an example of what constitutes an actual stub, see this article. You seem to have made up your mind, but you come across as not liking the article because it doesn't have content in it that you would like to be there, but sources don't cover. Wikipedia articles are based upon what reliable sources state, rather than conjecture. North America1000 23:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Hijiri88, you brought up some good points that would fit fabulously within the article, but we simply cannot add them to the article without the proper sources. I wouldn't agree that this is the shortest GA ever; yeah, it's on the short side, but it is broad in its coverage. I know you disagree with both Northamerica1000 and myself on this, but if the sources don't exist, it can't be included. Regards, Carbrera (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
That's fine. I opened this as a community reassessment because I wasn't sure if I was right or not. If I was absolutely certain that my opinion would be shared by others, this would be an individual reassessment. I should correct you on one point, though: I said it is easily the shortest GA I've seen (emphasis added). I don't doubt that there are other GAs that are shorter and have held up under reassessment and that an experienced GA reviewer would have seen such, but this is about 2/3 the length of the second-shortest GA I personally happen to have read. I still think this article lacks the kind of information I would expect from a Wikipedia article on this topic, and I think if sources can't be found for said information then it's a "PERMASHORT" or a "NEARPERMASTUB" or whatever one might call such an article and is likely to raise a question for readers that there are insufficient sources to answer. I wrote a few similar articles for WP Asian Month last November (they meet GNG but there's really not all that much that could be written about them, even if they can't be called WP:PERMASTUBs). So I certainly don't think that the page should be deleted or merged or anything, just that it might not be the type of article that should be a GA. Anyway, I suspect the longer this gets the less likely it is editors other than the original nominator, the original reviewer, and the one who opened the GAR will comment. If it winds up being 2-1 then it will be no consensus to delist and I'd be cool with that, but it would still be nice if some others chimed in as well. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am concerned that the term "old-fashioned doughnut" does not appear specifically cited in conjunction with the stated 1829 date in References 1 & 2. Yes, I can know that the original use of the term probably happened after commercial leavening agents were available but so far as I can tell this is not stated in these references. It seems to me that a better title for this article would possibly be "Cake doughnut". Shearonink (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shearonink: If this makes any sense, a cake doughnut is more of a variety/style of doughnut while "old fashioned" is a specific type of a doughnut. Carbrera (talk) 03:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
This article is specifically about the old-fashioned doughnut, which is one of many varieties of cake doughnut. Changing the title to "Cake doughnut" would be quite inaccurate to do relative to the content of the article. North America1000 15:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To me the question remains...are old-fashioned doughnuts a type of cake doughnuts or is it the other way around. The references certainly seem to imply that old-fashioneds are a type of cake. I still think the cited references don't seem to quite verify that "old-fashioned doughnuts" were an invented/created things of a certain date & time. The references all refer to the invention of pearlash and commercial doughnuts but there isn't really anything specific in them about the old-fashioned. Maybe I missed that, am always willing to learn. Shearonink (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It states in the lead, "The old-fashioned doughnut is a variety of cake doughnut ...". It's not the other way around (e.g. "the cake doughnut is a variety of old-fashioned doughnut"). This seems plain to me. I added the history content per the request herein for it to be included. That's the best that's out there in internet searches. Still can't find anything about when the old-fashioned doughnut itself was invented. It's origin and date of invention appears to never have been documented. North America1000 15:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I feel that the original GA reviewer, Carbrera, did address the good article criteria appropriately. As per the discourse above, Wikipedia articles are based upon what reliable sources state, and the suggestions herein by the original poster for additions to the article are not topically covered by reliable sources. When I developed this article, all sources available in online searches were used in its the process, except in cases when the content in sources was duplicative. As such, the article passes point #3 of the GA Criteria, "Broad in its coverage". North America1000 15:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as GA. I do think the GA Review was fine and that the size of the article is also fine. Not every GA has to be some opus of 40+ pages - there is space within Wikipedia for all sorts and sizes of GA articles. However I do have some additional thoughts about this article which are in my Comment below. Shearonink (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My main point about the sourcing & statements seems to be getting lost. Almost all of the History section (which, yes, I do understand was added in the course of this discussion) is about "cake doughnuts", there is nothing in that section about old-fashioned and the origins of old-fashioneds. I do understand that old-fashioneds are a type of cake but why is everything in History about the parent foodstuff? There is nothing specifically about old-fashioned's origination story or stories. All the cited references in that section are about the parent foodstuff instead of about the actual subject of this article. For illustration's sake, to me it's as if there were an article about George Washington but the lead was about his parents and everything in early years was only specifically about his mother and father. If there aren't any sources that speak to the origins of the name "old-fashioned" or of the origination of the actual type of doughnut now known as "old-fashioned" then those sources don't exist and that is OK - if the sources don't exist, that doesn't mean the subject isn't worthy of being a GA. It just means when people came up with this type of doughnut and someone called it the name Old-Fashioned, then no one bothered to write it all up - they were probably too busy enjoying the eating of it. It's part of popular culture and sometimes things move too quickly in life to write everything down and get it all published. Shearonink (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added the following sentence to the History sentence to clarify matters: "It is unclear when the old-fashioned doughnut itself was invented, but this very likely occurred after the cake doughnut was invented." I also further copy edited and organized the History section to make it clearer. North America1000 15:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Old-fashioned_doughnut/1&oldid=1077827927"