Template:Did you know nominations/Ancient grains

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 4meter4 (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Ancient grains

(

)

Amaranth, an ancient grain

~~... that ancient grains (Amaranth grain pictured) are considered to be more nutritional than other grains and remained unchanged for thousands of years?~~

ALT1: ~~... that ancient grains (Amaranth grain pictured) are gluten-free and beneficial in controlling various diseases?~~
Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Corinne Bennett
Comment: Article was nominated for AfD on this version created by new user, but later it was improved and AfD was withdrawn by nominator and closed as keep.

Created by Jcampsall (talk) and Human3015 (talk). Nominated by Human3015 (talk) at 00:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC).

I'm very concerned about neutrality for this article. A lot of the statements in this article are vague and provide no context. For example, what does it mean for a grain to be 5,000 years old? How old are wheat and rice and other more widespread grains? What does "3 times higher than the average value in other grains" mean? I'd like to see a scientific source discuss protein content of grains, and their healthiness in general. Why does it matter that sales of specific grains increased a lot in a specific year?

There are some reputable popular publications included as sources (LA Times, NPR, BBC, etc.) but more than half are from blogs and organizations that seem to have a POV of advocating "natural" nutrition. The net effect of this is to make the article seem promotional, which is not consistent with neutrality. I'm sorry, but the article will need substantial work to be eligible for DYK. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 19:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Not sure how to oppose this but neither hook is cited to a neutral source and the alt hook makes a medical claim, which I think is forbidden. Also the article is promotional and lacks clarity, or even a proper definition. Siuenti (talk) 12:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

We don't outright oppose articles here at DYK; we provide helpful feedback and give nominators every chance to improve their articles. Rejection only occurs if the article is not made consistent with the guidelines after an extended period of time. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 18:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@Antony–22: thakns for your review and for giving me extended time. This is very interesting concept that many people don't know, thats why this deserves place in DYK. I found this article while deletion sorting at AfD and till that time I was not knowing anything about this subject. After some search I found this topic very useful and interesting. Agriculture was discivered 10,000 years ago, those grains which were grown by ancient humans in their farm are known as ancient grains, for example this Oxford Journal of Experimental Botany is very valuable scietific source which clearly differetiates "ancient wheats" (like Kamut) from "modern bread wheat" that we usually eat. Read complete doculement, they have been genetically changed over the time, search word "ancient" in it, they are also saying it is more nutritional. Journal also talk about 10,000 years thing. You can also read this regarding most modern wheat. There are some books like by "Academic press will clear your doubts. I am posting it here to at least convince you that it is not "hoax" or "promotional". It is one of most deserving candidate for DYK.--Human3015^TALK 19:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The Oxford article is a good reliable source, but it's not currently used as a citation in the Wikipedia article, though it would be a good addition. See WP:MEDPOP for the rationale on reliable sources on medical and health information.

I've pruned the article to get rid of vague statements and unreliable sources. There is more than enough information in the five reliable sources that I left to build it back up to DYK length. The addition of any other reliable sources, such as the Oxford article you mentioned, would be welcome as well. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 23:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the article is now below the length threshold required for DYK. The article needs to be expanded using reliable sources as discussed above, otherwise it will not pass. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, the article currently has 785 prose characters, and requires a minimum of 1500 prose characters for DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Done (2332 characters, QPQ done, copyvio unlikely ) will provide another hook,

ALT2 ... that ancient grains (amaranth pictured) were worshipped in various ancient civilizations?

--Human3015^TALK 12:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

New and long enough, neutrality and prose good after a few copyedits by me, QPQ done, no copyvios. The word "worshipped" isn't used in any of the sources, though the bit about it being banned by the Spanish might make for a good hook. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 07:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@Antony-22: this source in the article clearly mentions that "ancient grains" were being worshipped. Moreover, one can see numerous sources after google searching "Ancient grains worshipped". --Human3015^TALK 08:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake. Looks like I misplaced that reference while copyediting. Good to go. I'll suggest one extra hook as well. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 08:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

ALT3: ... that the cultivation of the ancient grain amaranth (pictured) was banned by Spanish colonial authorities due to its religious significance to the Aztecs?

ALT3 verified to source provided. sst✈^(discuss) 03:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)