Template:Did you know nominations/Argentine tea culture

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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 Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Argentine tea culture[edit]

(

)

... that mate tea served in a traditional gourd cup should never be stirred with the straw; doing so is considered poor etiquette in Argentine tea culture?

Comment: Alternative photo available on article page

Created/expanded by OttawaAC (talk). Self nom at 23:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this article needs a lot of work. The references do not all appear to meet WP:V and to my mind there aren't enough in-line citations to support the writing. There's also a little bit of concern about close-paraphrasing in the first couple of paragraphs but that might just be me. Are there any other sources which could be added to the article to help bolster the writing? Having said that, length is good and the hook is very interesting. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

No further work has been done on this and close paraphrasing concerns remain.

Article: "...introduced in Argentina in 1920 with seeds brought from Russia. The tea that was produced at that time was of a poor quality, so tea production remained a minor activity up until 1951..."

Source: "...introduced to Argentina in 1920 with seeds brought from Russia. The quality of this tea was not good, so tea production remained a minor activity up until 1951..." Sorry, not good enough. Schwede 66 03:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I've addressed that sentence if that's the major concern. Norstrem (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It was just an example of one of the concerns. As the other reviewer points out, this is in need of some major work. Any reason why you didn't react to the previous feedback in over two weeks? As far as I'm concerned, feedback wasn't acted on for over two weeks and thus it goes. The purpose of me documenting an example was just so that we have more clearly documented why it was rejected. Schwede 66 02:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Cool it, friend. I was just passing through. I didn't write or nominate this, so I have no idea why you're asking me why I "didn't react to the previous feedback in over two weeks." Norstrem (talk) 03:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

My apologies; I hadn't looked at the signature and wrongly assumed that the nominator was now responding. Sorry for that. Schwede 66 03:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: "Any reason why [I] didn't react to the previous feedback in over two weeks": It wasn't presented to me as an urgent copyright violation issue that required immediate attention. That issue has been discussed between me and others over the past two weeks, while I get a better idea of what's required on Wikipedia. The rest of the criticisms may or may not be valid as a basis for voting yea/nay on the DYK nomination; but they are fairly extraneous in comparison to the copyright issue. Which I think has now been addressed. If you have some other reason for voting "nay", go for it. I haven't had a chance to go through the rather lengthy rules/guidelines/etc. for the DYK process down to the last letter, so I'm not that familiar with the timeframes for addressing critiques. I presume at some point the nominations fall off the list, but not sure when. OttawaAC (talk) 03:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

"Màs información" added to the article, and some more sources cited. OttawaAC (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing concerns remain.

Article: "In 1952, new tea plantations were established in Misiones province in the north-east region of Argentina."

Source: "In 1952 new plantations of better quality tea were established in Misiones province in the north-east section of Argentina." Schwede 66 04:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I've spent some time working on improvement of this article. I've looked at most of the sources cited in the article. I'm not finding any remaining issues with closeness of wording. However, I am at a loss to explain the source of the information in the following sentences, which have the "ring" of something that might have been copied from another publication:

"Young Argentinians' tastes in tea beverages are increasingly influenced by global retail trends. Argentinian consumers can purchase Moroccan mint tea or Chinese green tea as well as more traditional varieties." --Orlady (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you have addressed the paraphrasing concerns, Orlady, then I believe we should give this article an AGF tick (whilst I share your concern, I could uncover nothing that is online). It's long enough, was new at the time of nomination, the hook fact is confirmed and the article is suitably referenced. Schwede 66 19:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Still some close paraphrasing issues here. Examples: "In 1952, new tea plantations were established in Misiones Province in northeastern Argentina, growing a better quality tea" vs "In 1952 new plantations of better quality tea were established in Misiones province in the north-east section of Argentina" and "Argentine gauchos were observed by colonists to subsist on a diet of little more than meat and mate without developing scurvy" vs "colonists who wondered how gauchos survived on a diet of purely meat and mate without being affected by scurvy". Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The last time I looked, this was DYK and not FAR. Very few readers would think to suggest plagiarism or copyvio based on those kinds of comparisons. --Orlady (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

No one has suggested copyvio, but it is certainly close paraphrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the accuracy of the hook (and may just need to be educated)-- came here because I lived in Argentina and I Hate Yerba Mate-- that stuff is just gross. But what makes Yerba Mate a "tea"? It's a holly bush and an infusion-- what does that have to do with "tea culture"? Do we consider all "infusions" to be "teas"? Pls educate me.

More substantially, WP:MEDRS alert:

Maté has many health benefits; it is rich in antioxidants and vitamins.[9]

Don't source a medical claim to the laypress. This needs attention. Also, while the article looks generally accurate (based on my experience living there), have all of those travel guides, bloggish-type sources been reviewed for reliability??? Expansion of articles should be based on reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, this source answers several of my queries-- please remove the laypress source-- better info in here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Another here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I just stuck to the first one and touched on the very basics. The beverage article should have the lot. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Cas-- good fixes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

As far as the other sources, agree that ideally we should get better ones, but the information is pretty straightforward so am inclined not to worry about it at this juncture, and load this one up. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but do want to point out that this is an experienced (repeat) DYK nominator, there are high quality sources available (I posted a few, there are more), so there's little reason for this editor to continue writing articles from inferior sources (so that someone else will have to clean them up in the future). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it was me :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)