Talk:Handwich

Did you know nomination

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: rejected by BorgQueen (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that The Walt Disney Company invented the Handwich? Source: Just about every source describing the Handwich, but here's two.
  • ALT1: ... that the Handwich was meant to be the "sandwich of the future"? Source: "Labeled as 'The sandwich of the future,' Disney's Handwich was exactly that, a sandwich that could more easily be held in your hands ..."
  • ALT2: ... that the Handwich was meant to be a successor to the sandwich and the wrap? Source: "Disney's Handwich set out to revolutionize the commercial culinary landscape and do away with the old-fashioned, cumbersome traditional sandwich once and for all." Same source also mentions the wrap and pita, but that quote is pretty long.
  • ALT3: ... that despite being discontinued in the 1990s, the Handwich—or at least food similar to it—remains on some restaurant menus at Walt Disney World and Disneyland? Source: See the sources for this entire section, but here's an example.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Tim Watson-Munro
  • Comment: It's QPQs from hereon out, I guess.

Created by AdoTang (talk). Self-nominated at 20:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Handwich; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• @AdoTang: Another interesting contribution from you, thanks. But I'm curious. Why did you use the AfC process to create this article? I thought you could simply create articles yourself. BorgQueen (talk) 20:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Oh, I just like running it through the draft process. Doesn't really feel right otherwise. AdoTang (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - see below
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: - see below

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - see below
• Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article is new enough, long enough and neutral. I am, however, concerned about the reliability of Parkeology, Inside the Magic, Mental Floss, Main Street Gazette, WDW News Today, WDW Magic, The Disney Food Blog, The Disney Blog Disney Parks Blog and RetroWDW. The quote from Parkeology also shows a 47.1% similarity per the copyvio detector, so that should probably be reduced. I find ALT0 uninteresting, but the rest are good. However, ALT1 is not sourced in the article, and ALT2 and ALT3 do not have sources supporting them at the end of their sentences. QPQ has been done. Pamzeis (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• I can't address all of these right now, but I must say that I don't really have a choice to use other sources for this article. It's not like CNN or The New York Times is going to cover the history of an obscure Disney sandwich, and any really solid sources—such as those used in the Defunctland video, or that Disney World cookbook—are more or less inaccessible to me. Yes, the article relies on Disney fansites and a YouTube video, but they're the only sources that would ever cover this, and they're the only sources I can find. But anyway, for now, I'll take a look at that copyvio quote. AdoTang (talk) 13:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
  • @Pamzeis: Sourced ALT1 and ALT2 in the article to what I believe is an acceptable point. I think we can ditch ALT3 seeing I don't believe there's one source for it. AdoTang (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, sorry about this, but I may not have time to complete this review. I'd like to request a new reviewer for this. Apologies for any inconvenience caused. Pamzeis (talk) 04:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems: - Questions relating to reliability of sources that are unclear about their information or not reliable in general.

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: I saw this in the WP:APARKS feed and have heard about it through the Defunctland video so I will pick it up. At the time the article was new enough and long enough (now about 6,800 characters). Earwig cites no likely matches for close paraphrasing or plagiarism. The article has sourcing on all points and covers the topic well. What does hinder me from giving this a pass or a maybe consideration is the sources as addressed above. I would not consider "Inside the Magic" or "WDW News Today" as reliable sources at all because of their history with flashy clickbait content, bias, and lack of integrity. Disney blogs are generally not reliable, either. The Defunctland video, while fun and informative, does not clearly cite some of its sources, supplementing such with zoomed-in shots of supposed sources that I cannot personally verify.

Based on the sources the article would have to go through a revision to meet reliability standards. Sources I am sure might be out there to prove the reliability and content of this article, but at this time in good faith, I cannot pass this. Adog (Talk・Cont) 15:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)