- 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 Rjjiii talk 06:16, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Red velvet cake
edit
A four-layer slice of red velvet cake
- ... that Waldorf-Astoria and Eaton's both claim to have invented the red velvet cake? Source: Galarza, G. Daniela (June 11, 2021). "Red Velvet Cake is 'the Color of Joy.' Here's How It Rose into America's Dessert Canon". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on March 8, 2023. Retrieved February 4, 2025.
- ALT1: ... that the red velvet cake regained its popularity due to its appearance in the Steel Magnolias film? Source: Severson, Kim (May 12, 2014). "Red Velvet Cake: A Classic, Not a Gimmick". The New York Times. Archived from the original on March 26, 2019. Retrieved February 4, 2025., Fabricant, Florence (February 14, 2007). "So Naughty, So Nice". The New York Times. Archived from the original on August 15, 2024. Retrieved February 3, 2025.
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/1932 Winter Olympics medal table
Improved to Good Article status by Vacant0 (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 15 past nominations.
Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:44, 8 February 2025 (UTC).
- Mmm, I want. I suggest ALT2: ... that red velvet cake has been described as "the Dolly Parton of cakes"? Also, is there a reason you haven't added the image to the nom?--Launchballer 18:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
-
- I've forgot to add it. Should be good now! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:45, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
- ALT3 ... that red velvet cake became less popular in the 1970s after red dye #2 was linked to cancer, but regained popularity after it was featured in 1989's Steel Magnolias? Valereee (talk) 16:44, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Promoted to GA. Long enough, sourced and neutral. QPQ done. Earwig shows no immediate issues except for similar wording of X year film name, which I usually fix by putting the year in parentheses but I have recently stopped doing because some editors have expressed displeasure with that format, so I'm not going to fix it and I'll just leave it as is. I did perform a series of copyedits for wording and to eliminate repetition, which you are free to revert. There is an issue of consistency in referring to Red Dye #2 or red dye #2 which I tried to fix, but presents issues for some of the hooks. Figure out how you want to do this and change it accordingly. My take is that red dye is fine, but if you add the number, you're typically supposed to refer to the name of the dye in that form as a proper noun, but there's some dispute and confusion abut this since the name of FD&C color additives may be presented in either format, but it's not clear how Wikipedia does it. You had it in both, which is why I made the change. Figure out how you want to do it and make the change to the article and the hook. I approve all hooks. Viriditas (talk) 00:03, 10 February 2025 (UTC)