Wikipedia:Peer review/White chocolate/archive1
Appearance
Toolbox |
---|
Looking to take this article to FA. My main concerns are if there is material the article is not covering. Thankyou, Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 09:01, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Why is the US the only country to warrant its own section? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- The white chocolate fad was very unusual globally, as was the backlash and ensuing standard of identity. The designation as "chocolate" has been very influential globally in whether white chocolate is chocolate. I've checked many LOTE sources as best I can, and white chocolate has generally been ignored as "children's food" or merely nostalgic. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 02:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- Some images are missing alt texts.
Done
- For {{nutritional value}},
|note=
is used for serving size; if USDA is the source,|source=
should be usedDone
- All of the refs are sfn except two; why?
- Are you talking about the use of Harvsp? I used that when there wasn't an author or when there were too many, as the documentation for sfnp says these are not supported and advises using Harv. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions)
- No, it's the ones for nutritional value, FNs 88 and 89. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:08, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- Ah. Those are embedded in Template:Infobox nutritional value, I tried to change them but didn't succeed. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 02:16, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- Have you tried
|noRDA=
? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 10 April 2025 (UTC)- I did. I've converted it so you can see what it looks like: original and new. The infobox is a bit more unsightly, but at least it's using sfn. The bigger issue is that the template updates automatically and this doesn't, which causes small issues such as a URL being inaccurately marked as live, to big ones of guidelines being revised. I'll leave it to your judgement. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 04:03, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- Have you tried
- Ah. Those are embedded in Template:Infobox nutritional value, I tried to change them but didn't succeed. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 02:16, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- No, it's the ones for nutritional value, FNs 88 and 89. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:08, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- Are you talking about the use of Harvsp? I used that when there wasn't an author or when there were too many, as the documentation for sfnp says these are not supported and advises using Harv. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions)
- Some books include publication locations, others don't. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- I omitted this when the publisher included the location (e.g. University of California Press, Oxford University Press) per the Template:Cite book documentation: "omit [location] when the name of the work includes the publication place". Apologies if you're referring to ones this doesn't apply to that I missed. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions)
- Okay, that's fine. Is there a reason to sometimes specify city and other times use only state? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:08, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- I believe I went with the most precise location available. There aren't too many that applies to so I can double check. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 02:16, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- I went back and gave cities when available to entries I missed the first time around. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 17:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- I believe I went with the most precise location available. There aren't too many that applies to so I can double check. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 02:16, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, that's fine. Is there a reason to sometimes specify city and other times use only state? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:08, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- I omitted this when the publisher included the location (e.g. University of California Press, Oxford University Press) per the Template:Cite book documentation: "omit [location] when the name of the work includes the publication place". Apologies if you're referring to ones this doesn't apply to that I missed. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions)
- The infobox states vanilla is an "ingredient generally used"; I don't see that statement in the article body? (It is mentioned as an example only). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
Done
- The infobox also gives the ingredients as including milk solids, whereas the lead lists only milk - suggest making these consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
Done
- I saw you removed (hereafter referred to as) before cocoa solids. I added that based on this conversation, if you think it's unambiguous without it then I'll omit. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 17:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- I think in this context the term is providing a gloss for what precedes, so fine on that basis. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:59, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- The History section begins with the OED entry - are there any non-English equivalents that precede the origin noted by OED?
- None that I've found. I did find something intriguing in a 1931 article in a Treccani encyclopedia, which says "La Svizzera si può considerare la culla della fabbricazione del cioccolato al latte e alla vaniglia" [Switzerland can be considered the cradle of milk and vanilla chocolate production. per Google translate]. Whether this Swiss-founded vanilla chocolate is white chocolate is unclear, as earlier texts give recipes for vanilla chocolate that don't look like white chocolate, I haven't found anything fruitful out of searches for vanilla chocolate in non-English searches.
- "It also mentions a rumor" - is the "it" here the OED or Scientific American? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 11 April 2025 (UTC) OED,
Done
- "Making white chocolate was said to be a way" - who said?
- It's unclear, the source doesn't seem to want to endorse the theory, and I doubt it's true. The source says: "The history of white chocolate is largely unclear, but "the general consensus," says Eagranie Yuh, author of "The Chocolate Tasting Kit" (Chronicle, 2014), "is that Nestlé was the first to develop white chocolate commercially in 1936 in Switzerland. The story is that it was a way to use up excess milk powder that had been produced for World War I and was no longer in demand."" WW1 ended 18 years before. Milk solids do not last for 18 years, chocolate crumb was invented because it can't really last even a year.
- Is there a way to rephrase this to make that clear? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:49, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
- I've spent a while on this, having difficulties with SYNTH, and ended up with "According to one account of Galak's creation, demand for milk powder had decreased in the years following World War I, creating a glut. Making white chocolate was a way manufacturers could use up this excess product." Hope this is sufficient. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 13:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
- Is there a way to rephrase this to make that clear? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:49, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
- It's unclear, the source doesn't seem to want to endorse the theory, and I doubt it's true. The source says: "The history of white chocolate is largely unclear, but "the general consensus," says Eagranie Yuh, author of "The Chocolate Tasting Kit" (Chronicle, 2014), "is that Nestlé was the first to develop white chocolate commercially in 1936 in Switzerland. The story is that it was a way to use up excess milk powder that had been produced for World War I and was no longer in demand."" WW1 ended 18 years before. Milk solids do not last for 18 years, chocolate crumb was invented because it can't really last even a year.
- "which were then being produced in excess" - in what context? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- What variety of English is the article using?
- Should all be AmEng. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 13:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
- Is there a reason Northumberland in particular was against the chocolate descriptor? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:50, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
- It wasn't, reworded to "and in at least one county companies agreed to avoid the descriptor". Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 13:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
- "said to be due to the lower caffeine content and milder flavor" - again, who said? Can we just say "closely associated with children because of the lower caffeine..." etc?
- I seem to be a big fan of this construction. Changed to "as adults believed it was more appropriate than chocolates with caffeine and strong flavors". Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 09:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- "The mascot continued to be portrayed by a child until 2010" - technically the mascot was a child. Was it the same child just described until 2010? Was it a series of children until 2010? What happened in 2010? Suggest rephrasing
Done
- There is a tendency to repeat phrasings in close proximity - eg #History has three "due to"s in three sentences
Done
- "Spectacles" is the textbook example from MOS:COMMONALITY
Done
- What was done here? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- I changed it and then apparently didn't save the changes. now
Done (diff) Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 02:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- I changed it and then apparently didn't save the changes. now
- What was done here? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Can we provide a couple-word gloss for Elgorriaga?
Done
- The first sentence of the third para of #History is about Spain - are the following two sentences Spain-specific also?
- Yes,
Done
- Yes,
- Does "almond variety" mean a variety with almond flavouring, or a variety with whole almonds, or a praline?
- Good question. The text says "En 1965, le premier chocolat blanc fabriqué en Espagne vit le jour dans l’usine Elgorriaga d’Irun. De gros fabricants d’Oñate proposèrent bientôt un produit similaire, ainsi que Loyola ou Zahor. Ce dernier développa même, à terme, une variante aux amandes." No more elaboration is given on "variante aux amandes". I've changed to "one of them producing an almond-white chocolate sweet." to cover the possibilities. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 09:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- "Nestlé, then the world market leader in white chocolate, pushed to create a mass market for white chocolate in Japan." - how and what was the result?
- The source doesn't elaborate, it was contemporary. Other sources don't mention it. Sourcing was pretty spotty on the history, I filled it in as best I could but there are still gaps. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 09:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- "By 2017, white chocolate was widely considered acceptable for adults to eat" - is this specifically in the UK? Yes,
Done
- "invented around 2005 after white chocolate was accidentally left in a bain-marie for several days" - can you briefly indicate what the result was to make this a potentially different kind of chocolate?
Done
- "received much attention" - media attention? reworded
- "a contemporary online survey" - date?
Done
- "The Food and Drug Administration forbade white chocolate being marketed as "chocolate" unless manufacturers held rare permits that had to be renewed every fifteen months" - where does this sit timeline-wise with the FDA-related actions in the following paragraph? Suggest incorporating this there.
Done
- Standard identity or standard of identity?
Done
- What is the relationship between the #Regulations content and the FDA discussion in #History? Is one based on the other? Are they the same thing?
- Yes, the same thing. The #History content is about the formation of US regulations, while the #Regulations content is about current legal standards, in the US and internationally. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 09:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- Is there a way to make this clearer? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- I believe I've done so, I should have mentioned the FDA before. (diff) Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 02:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Is there a way to make this clearer? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, the same thing. The #History content is about the formation of US regulations, while the #Regulations content is about current legal standards, in the US and internationally. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 09:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- Is there a reason BRIC specifically is called out? It does not appear from the content that regulations are standardized among these countries
- They're not standardized, but I wanted to cover regulations from an international perspective. The source discussed their regulations from the perspective of the grouping. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 09:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- Unless there's a clear reason that was done, I'd suggest just naming the specific countries, rather than having people chase the link. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- I'll fix this shortly when I have source access. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 02:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- I've reworded to better establish significance: diff. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 04:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Unless there's a clear reason that was done, I'd suggest just naming the specific countries, rather than having people chase the link. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- They're not standardized, but I wanted to cover regulations from an international perspective. The source discussed their regulations from the perspective of the grouping. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 09:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- Make sure that for each source used, you're confident you could answer what makes it reliable; anything for a medical claim should meet MEDRS
- I'm confident. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 09:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- "can smell of biscuit" - as in British biscuits or American biscuits? Suggest linking
Done
- "Milk fats in white chocolate carry flavors, serve as flavor precursors, and provide flavor, some of these produced throughout the production process" - not sure what this is intended to mean
- Changed to "Milk fats contribute to white chocolate's flavor in three ways: they add milky flavors to the final chocolate, help diffuse other flavors, making them easier to taste, and finally they serve as flavor precursors (ingredients that produce new flavors as they are processed)." Hopefully this is much clearer. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 06:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Is there a wikilink available to clarify "metallized"? Ditto "feves"? "Pistoles"? Generally speaking, wikilinking a bit more frequently would be helpful, and glossing if no link is available
- Added some links, including to all these. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 06:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- "craft white chocolate is unusually popular" - unusually compared to other markets or other products?
- Other markets, changed. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 12:53, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Why is this particularly categorized as Swiss cuisine, and not other cuisines?
- Deemphasized. Sources don't emphasize this. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 06:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- "sugar modified to be porous" - what does this mean?
- Changed to "The sugar in the bar was modified to contain
tiny holesa hollowed center" Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 06:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)- Sorry, still not sure what this is meant to convey. As in the sugar crystals themselves? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Correct. Clarified. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 02:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, still not sure what this is meant to convey. As in the sugar crystals themselves? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Changed to "The sugar in the bar was modified to contain
- "vegetables such as kale and mustard" - is the reference here mustard greens or mustard seed? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
- Unclear, so I've replaced with broccoli from the same source. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 06:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Is the cause of metallic taste known?
- No, this was questioned in the GA review as well and I haven't found anything. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 09:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 06:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
Nikkimaria Thankyou for these comments, they're a great resource for me to come back to in my future work as I can see what issues I'm creating in my writing. I've finished addressing them all, hopefully sufficiently. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 12:53, 14 April 2025 (UTC)