Talk:Mushroom synagogue

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: promoted by RoySmith (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• Source: https://www.jta.org/jewniverse/2012/mushroom-synagogues
  • ALT1: ... that mushroom synagogues helped many Jews celebrate the High Holidays? Source: https://www.jta.org/jewniverse/2012/mushroom-synagogues
  • Reviewed: Daily Star lettuce

Created by Sir Joseph (talk). Self-nominated at 17:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC).

• (Not a review) I struck the original hook because DYK rules require a hook fact to be in the article, with a reliable source. The source has a picture of a mushroom, but neither it nor the article mentions hallucinogens (nor should they).  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  17:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
• @Sir Joseph: New enough, long enough, neutral, and plagiarism-free – beyond that, I believe there's some things to work out. First, I see that there are some bare URLs used as sourcing – those'll have to be converted into real citations. Additionally, while the article is long enough, it doesn't have a lead or adequate use of sections, and I've classified it as a stub. Hook is cited and interesting, though, and a QPQ has been done, so we're not so far! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:42, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I will get to those over the weekend. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
    • Does the article need sections or a lead? Right now it's small enough that I think it's fine. I think it's possible to extend to have a background section, but that wouldn't be about the synagogue at all. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
      • If it has a solid lead and one section, that's probably fine. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 07:55, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
        • I don't think that's really necessary, or required, for an article of this size. I'm sure it can be expanded over time, and getting it out there is one way to help speed it up, but for DYK, I think the article is good. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:29, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
          • @Sir Joseph: I'm not so sure I agree – I mean, the size in question is 1648 bytes. That's barely over the 1500 byte threshhold – it makes sense to say discretionarily that to not be considered a stub, it should have some minimum level of organization. If there's a lead, and a separation between the lead and the body, I count that as fine. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
          • @Theleekycauldron:, ok I made some changes and added a small lead to define the article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
            • @Sir Joseph: awesome! Now we'll just need the bare URLs to be cleaned up. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
              • @Theleekycauldron:,done. Thanks, Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
                • @Sir Joseph: i see one other bare URL? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
                  • @Theleekycauldron:, done. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:34, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
                    • Awesome! Nice work, Sir Joseph :) good to go. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)