Talk:Aerated chocolate/GA1

GA review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Rollinginhisgrave (talk · contribs) 17:34, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: It is a wonderful world (talk · contribs) 22:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I'll review this sometime in the next few days. Mint Aero is my favourite chocolate! Every so often I check your contribs to see what you're up to, and it's always some great work to food articles or some insightful contribution to another area. It's actually rather motivating. Best of luck in your work to bring an article to FA! IAWW (talk) 22:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Rollinginhisgrave, prose comments are below. I had no issues with anything else. IAWW (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks It is a wonderful world, I'll get on these shortly, thanks for getting on it so fast. I've also sent you an email, posting here in lieu of a ygm. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 02:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Prose (Criteria 1a, 1b, 4) clock

Lead

The main [type], seen in Aero, has large bubbles and: Add extra word for clarity and add comma to the other side of the non-restrictive clause. IAWW (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)  Done

Aerated chocolate with tiny bubbles uses the same beating gas method, but uses nitrogen: Cut comma (WP:CINS) IAWW (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)  Done

A final type: I believe this should be "The final type", because the list has already been defined. IAWW (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)  Done

History

The actual production of Aero was simpler: Than the method explained in the patent? If so, I'm not sure the following explanatory clause is relevant ("as manufacture only required a small capital investment"), as it refers to the cost, not the simplicity of the method. IAWW (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• Clarified: "Production was easier to manage than development". Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions)

I like this. IAWW (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

as did another product Rowntree's released that year, Kit Kat: In my opinion this isn't relevant enough, but I'm not strongly opposed to keeping it. IAWW (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• Removed. This was expanding on "At the time, Rowntree's had been struggling for several years to compete with Cadbury Dairy Milk and was looking for a new product to this end." that aerated chocolate was one of several products and not the only success. You can see this is the focus of the text giving context in this review [1] Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions)

Ah I see. Feel free to include if you would like. IAWW (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

What was the initial reception to Aero like? I think sales performance should definitely be included. IAWW (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• clock Pending source access Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions)  Done

I think the additions are very good. IAWW (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

though this was objected to by rival chocolate manufacturer Cadbury: I think this is too vague to be meaningful. How did they object? IAWW (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• clock Pending source access Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions)
• who petitioned Rowntree's to stop putting down rival chocolate brands in their marketing. is this okay?

Yes, I think this is much better. IAWW (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

chocolate manufacturer Cadbury. Cadbury's positioned their: "Cadbury" or "Cadbury's"? IAWW (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• Made consistent Y Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions)

but neither were seen as "aerated" in the same sense as Aero: By whom? IAWW (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• Customers, clarified Y Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions)

Further to their objections about aerated chocolate's digestibility: "Aero's" might be a bit more precise than "aerated chocolate's" here. IAWW (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• I'll keep it as aerated chocolate, as the claim was being made for aerated chocolate as a type of chocolate. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions)

Fair IAWW (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Cadbury contested the validity of the patent itself: With what argument? IAWW (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• clock Pending source access Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions)
• With no argument, they just said "we don't accept this, we're going to release our own" Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions)

Aha okay. Not sure how they could get away with that! IAWW (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Ah. I've read a bit later in the text some better reasons. The page I cited initially said it was a strategic ploy, but later it gives more coherent reasons I missed the first time around. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 12:58, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Rowntree agreed to allow chocolate manufacturers to manufacture aerated chocolates after June 1938 if they committed to paying Rowntree a sum upon releasing new aerated chocolate lines and a 0.5% royalty on sales: Did they agree to this? If not, I'm not sure it's relevant. Also, if they did agree, is this still in effect to this day? IAWW (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• They did agree to this, I'll make that clearer when I have the source. The relevance is that this was the mechanism by which aerated chocolate was agreed to go beyond a proprietary product to a genericised type. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions)

After this period: What period? IAWW (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• Clarified Y

Cadbury only released an aerated chocolate in markets in overseas dominions: Cut "an" for grammatical correctness. Cutting "in markets" is a conciseness suggestion that also cuts the double "in". IAWW (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)  Done

By 1936, Aero was being successfully exported to Australia, and The Hershey Company purchased the Aero patent in May 1937, later altering the flavor and texture for the American palate: Mention that Hershey's is based in the US. Also I lightly suggest splitting this sentence for readability, but that's probably just a style preference. IAWW (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)  Done

introducing aerated chocolate to a new generation: Slightly editorialized and lacks substance. IAWW (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• Pending source access, but the idea was that because it hadn't been produced for a few years, and it was for kids, it was literally being introduced to a new generation as it hadn't been produced in their lifetime (not in a marketing way of updating branding to appeal to kids new preferences). Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions)

I see, that makes sense. I would be happy to keep as is, but if you could make it clearer with source access that would be great. IAWW (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2025 (UTC)  Done

Outside of the UK, wartime impacts on production were also observed in Canada and South Africa: Suggest cutting "Outside of the UK" for conciseness. IAWW (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• Good suggestion,  Done

In the late 50s through early 60s, a drop in sales in the UK resulted in an Aero variant, peppermint being permanently, and orange and coffee temporarily, released: This sentence has multiple issues with clarity I'm sure you can identify. Could you copyedit it for clarity? IAWW (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)  Done

Much much better IAWW (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Was it still Rowntree's manufacturing at this point? When did Nestle take over? IAWW (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• 1988, so yes. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions)
• Added Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 12:58, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

While its launch was a success, during a period where it was temporarily withdrawn to resolve manufacturing difficulties, Rowntree developed and launched a chunky Aero which was still on the market as of 2008:

• Starting the sentence with "While its launch was a success" makes the reader expect a contrast, but then the sentence moves to a different subject with not clear contrast.
  • Should be okay now. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 13:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• "was still on the market as of 2008" is a fact, and not a potentially dated statement, but you use the "as of" template which is for potentially dated statements.  Done
• Should it be "Rowntree's", not "Rowntree"?  Done
• I struggle to visualize how a "chunky" Aero would look like, is it possible to describe it a little more? IAWW (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
  • I think the way I've described it and the picture of the Wispa should help here? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions)

I think it's fine. IAWW (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

What about the chocolate "Twirl"? IAWW (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I believe that falls into the same category as Flake mentioned earlier? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 12:58, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I think this image would be very appropriate. IAWW (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• Added :) Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 13:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Types

There are four types of aerated chocolates that have been sold:: What source supports that there are only four? IAWW (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)  Done

I struggle to understand the fourth type, but I don't think there is anything wrong with your explanation. Could you find an image for this? IAWW (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I have a non-free picture, but it's not very illustrative. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 12:58, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Characteristics

Suggest linking "density", "volume" and maybe "weight" IAWW (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)  Done

"fragile mouth feel": Quote should be sourced inline. IAWW (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)  Done

The crispiness [in some aerated chocolates] has been attributed to the presence of larger bubbles: Because not all are crispy, right? IAWW (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)  Done

Earlier in the paragraph, the quick melting in the mouth is said to "intensify the flavor". In the middle of the paragraph it is said that smaller bubbles cause faster melting, and then at the end of the paragraph it is said that the larger bubbles have the most intense flavour. Surely there is a contradiction here? IAWW (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• I did a really bad job summarizing this source, I'm going to come back to repair it. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 12:58, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

allowing them to dissolve quickly in the mouth: I think "dissolve" is a bit imprecise here. IAWW (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)  Done

Production

Suggest linking "carbon dioxide" IAWW (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)  Done

Factors that affect bubble size include qualities of chocolate, such as viscosity, rate of setting and ingredients (e.g. emulsifiers and milk fats). The type of gas, pressure differences and rate and change: The sentences need to be combined as the second one does not stand alone. IAWW (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

micro-aerated chocolate has nitrogen beaten into the mixture: At the end of the characteristics section it was said that nitrogen creates bigger bubbles. IAWW (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

possibly arises from the different solubility of gas: Is it possible to use something stronger than "possibly" here? Like "Is theorised to arise from..."? I'm sure lots of things possibly cause the phenomenon, but not a lot of things are theorised to? IAWW (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Research

This is due to their respective Laplace pressures: Their differing Laplace pressures? IAWW (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)  Done

Sources Y

Health/formatting (Criterion 2a) Y

Beautiful sfn formatting (my favourite <3)

Reliability (Criterion 2b) Y

Almost all books from reliable publishers or reliable journals. The two news sources are used sparingly, one is The New York Times, and the other is ConfectioneryNews, which is reliable per the rationale you provided at the reliable sources noticeboard.

Spot check (Criteria 2b, 2c, 2d) Y

Spot check based on this version:

[2]: Y

[3]: Y

[7]: Y

[10a]: Y

[10b]: Y

[17]: Y

[22]: Y

[33]: Y

I had trouble accessing any other sources, but given the flawless spot check on the rest I am happy to assume good faith.

Copyvio (Criterion 2d) Y

Earwig finds nothing on the online sources. I saw no issues with close paraphrasing of the books during the spot check.

Media Y

Tags (Criterion 6a) Y

The one image is appropriately tagged.

Suggestions (not needed for GA promotion)

Suggest adding an archive link to the ConfectionaryNews source. IAWW (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Rowntree's covered their aerated chocolate under a broad patent, capturing products including variants such as chocolate with inclusions -> "Rowntree's patented their aerated chocolate broadly, covering variants such as chocolate with inclusions": Suggested conciseness IAWW (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

As of 2023, technologies to control bubble size: This is a possibly dated statement that could use the "as of" template. IAWW (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)