Jump to content

Talk:Chocolate in savory cooking

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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 Crisco 1492 talk 20:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mole
Mole
  • Source: "The idea of using chocolate as a flavoring in cooked food would have been horrifying to the Aztecs—just as Christians could not conceive of using communion wine to make, say, coq au vin. In all the pages of Sahagún that deal with Aztec cuisine and with chocolate, there is not a hint that it ever entered into an Aztec dish. Yet today many food writers and gourmets consider one particular dish, the famous pavo in mole poblano, which contains chocolate, to represent the pinnacle of the Mexican cooking tradition." - Coe and Coe: The True History of Chocolate
Created by Rollinginhisgrave (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 08:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Not a review for a moment: Hi @Rollinginhisgrave:! Before I review this, could you please revise the sources? They appear a bit messy in visual (no offense intended). I suggest organizing them by listing the article title or the publisher's name (e.g: Sources: British GQ) Also, the source on ALT 0 and ALT 1 haven't sources or link, could you provide the source? Thanks! Royiswariii (talk) 14:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it okay if I don't? Sorry, I'm using Template:sfnp, so the inline sources are arranged by Author, Year, Page/Section (if applicable). So I think it makes sense that the sources would follow the format of author and then date. And I did put the authors in alphabetical order. It's also the natural way they are generated using template:cite journal, template:cite book and template:cite web. Hope this is okay.
The sources for ALT0 and ALT1 are for a third edition of a book which is unfortunately offline. For that content, they are the same as the first edition, so I can put links to that? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Link for ALT0, link for ALT1 Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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: None required.

Overall: It's interesting and good to go. Royiswariii (talk) 10:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Chocolate in savory cooking/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Rollinginhisgrave (talk · contribs) 04:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Royiswariii (talk · contribs) 09:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. In Modern use section, there is a red wikilink could you explain that?
There is an article for it on the French wiki, but not the English wiki.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). I will review the sources.

All of them are reliable.

2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. I will hold this until Rollinginhisgrave address and fix.

Hi Rollinginhisgrave! I'm apologize if this GA are delayed due to my schoolwork. Overall, this is good article and I will approve this. You can promote this in WP:FACGO (See this criteria:WP:FACRITERIA), but i suggest to expand more this article to be considered this on FA. Royiswariii (talk) 09:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Royiswariii. Would you mind dropping a comment on WP:GAMENTOR before you pass this? I think having another pair of eyes would help with making sure all aspects of the GACR are evaluated. For instance, showing that you've completed a spot check, and I saw that you marked that there was not original research before you evaluated the sources. Thanks! Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Royiswariii when you have a chance, I've addressed your comment here. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]