Template:Did you know nominations/Mad honey
- 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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 12:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Mad honey
Spoonful of mad honey
... that honey mad (giant) make bees pictured?- ALT1:
... that (make) bees pictured giant honey mad? - ALT2: ... that hallucinogenic honey (pictured) was used as a biological weapon over 2000 years ago? Source: "The use of mad honey as a 'biological weapon' was first described in 401 BC by the Athenian historian and army commander Xenophon..."
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Rosa Laviña
- Comment: Hook created under the influence of mad honey.
- ALT1:
Created by Gobonobo (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 114 past nominations.
Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.gobonobo + c 07:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC).
- To be honest, I really don't understand the main hook or ALT1. Why are "giant" and "make" in italics? It kind of looks like the word order got scrambled.
Pinging Gobonobo in case this is an accident that passed unnoticed.Oh , my bad, it's a joke, I didn't read the comment. But given that users reading the hook won't have the privilege of seeing the comment, this should probably be tagged with [Humor]. Cremastra (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Full review needed. Striking both original hook and ALT1; parentheses are not allowed as part of hooks (except for "pictured" and the like). BlueMoonset (talk) 03:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Long enough, new enough. ALT2 short enough, interesting, and AGF sourced (shame about the other two). No neutrality issues found, no maintenance templates found. There's one quote in the article which is two paragraphs, only one of which is cited; I say it's obvious that the cite covers both, so I would pass this, but for the presence of single-sentence paragraphs which should be expanded per WP:DYKCOMPLETE.--Launchballer 10:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Launchballer: I've added a reference to the first half of the quote and moved a sentence. I'm not sure which other paragraphs strike you as not DYKCOMPLETE, I think the only single-sentence paragraph now is the one on legality. I could find no other (reliable) sources addressing legality, though I think it worth mentioning that it is banned in South Korea. gobonobo + c 16:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Looking at the source, that could easily be expanded. I wonder if it's worth knocking it and the paragraph together into a general 'Usage' section?--Launchballer 16:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- I could use some clarification. I'm not sure which paragraph you are referring to or which source. Is the issue a matter of how sections/paragraphs are arranged or is there an aspect that is not reasonably complete? This source mentions the 2005 ban in South Korea but makes no mention of legality in other countries. gobonobo + c 17:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- I did mean that source. What I meant was that the source says "According to a report, South Korea alone imported over 8000 kg of mad honey from Nepal during 2003–04 and then, further import was banned by the Korean government in 2005." The 'imported over 8000 kg' bit could go into the article. I'm not holding the nom up for it though, and given that I've merged it into the above section myself I can
pass this.--Launchballer 15:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- I did mean that source. What I meant was that the source says "According to a report, South Korea alone imported over 8000 kg of mad honey from Nepal during 2003–04 and then, further import was banned by the Korean government in 2005." The 'imported over 8000 kg' bit could go into the article. I'm not holding the nom up for it though, and given that I've merged it into the above section myself I can
- I could use some clarification. I'm not sure which paragraph you are referring to or which source. Is the issue a matter of how sections/paragraphs are arranged or is there an aspect that is not reasonably complete? This source mentions the 2005 ban in South Korea but makes no mention of legality in other countries. gobonobo + c 17:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Looking at the source, that could easily be expanded. I wonder if it's worth knocking it and the paragraph together into a general 'Usage' section?--Launchballer 16:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Launchballer: I've added a reference to the first half of the quote and moved a sentence. I'm not sure which other paragraphs strike you as not DYKCOMPLETE, I think the only single-sentence paragraph now is the one on legality. I could find no other (reliable) sources addressing legality, though I think it worth mentioning that it is banned in South Korea. gobonobo + c 16:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
