Talk:Black Forest gateau/GA1

GA review

Passed. Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

Nominator: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 12:34, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Bobby Cohn (talk · contribs) 17:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vacant0, I'm going to tackle this review. A quick review shows this is a good candidate and clearly above the bar of a quickfail. I'll conduct a further review of it and I'll let you know when my first pass of it is complete. Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Vacant0, overall a really easy first pass and reference spot check. I see you've already begun tackling the items I've pointed out. At the time of writing, I just have one concern about the timliness of the source and the Wikivoice use in the article, you'll see my comment in the #Reference spot check section. I'm also curious to know what your thoughts are on expanding or explaining the significance and the use of Kirsch in Black Forest gateau? Bobby Cohn (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I appreciate it a lot. I think that I've addressed everything now. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. 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):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

First pass comments

History

A claim of "first" in "The first written recipe of Black Forest gateau appeared in 1927", appears to be well sourced to The Oxford Companion to Sugar and Sweets. (Oxford University Press). Will be sure to verify in source assessment. (1b, 2b) AGF: offline source, see #Quotes below.
Awkward use of the word "therefore" implies the reader understands "protected by the European Commission" means, it may be better to rephrase and state in a simpler term. (1a)
- I've replaced it with "thus". I'm unsure how to rephrase that part differently.
  - Good.
Sentence starting with "In Todtnauberg, ..." awkwardly appends the paragraph dedicated to history without adding more details. Is it located in this section/paragraph because it was started at a specific point (i.e.:^[when?]). Suggested that this be expanded or moved. (3a, 3b) Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Moved to reception. There is no more coverage in RS besides it being mentioned. We do not know when the festival started.
  - Good.

Ingredients and preparation

Pretty good and simple section overall. No glaring issues.

As I'm continuing to read and re-read this, I'm understanding the importance of Kirsch in the recipe and history. Might be beneficial to introduce this to the reader more explicitly earlier in the article. Not sure if I have a suggestion fully fleshed out yet or there's some more room to expand here. I'd be interested in your thoughts. (3a) Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I've looked through sources again and sadly there's no too much discussion about it besides being mentioned as one of the key ingredients of the cake. I've, however, introduced it much earlier in the article. It now reads: "He made the cake by mixing Kirsch schnapps, a cherry brandy". Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  That's fair. Thanks for your response. Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Variations

No issues. ~~Note for later when checking references, I presume that the first sentence in the section will be verified using the citation at the end of the second sentence. (2b)~~ Good.

Reception

No issues. ~~Note for later that the quotations will need to be verified. (2b)~~ Good. See #Quotes below.

Lead

After reading the whole article, I think it would be beneficial to comment on the importance of the Kirsch. (3a, 3b)

Reference checks

Quotes

"The first written recipe of Black Forest gateau appeared in 1927." I see (a google translate of) the second source says:
"However, a written proof of the cherry cake of Keller can only be found in 1927/1928 in a recipe book, which is still kept in the municipal archive of Radolfzell."^[1]

The other is an offline source. Is the above a fair translation of the German or is some other context missing? So to this point, my question is there something that explicitly states "the first written recipe"? Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heinzelmann mentions in the book that it was the first written recipe and that it appeared in 1927.
- AGF.

References

^ Finkbeiner, Hannes (8 September 2024). "Schwarzwälder Kirschtorte: deutscher Exportschlager – aber auch erste Sahne?" [Black Forest Cake: A German Export Hit – But Is It Also Top-Notch?]. RedaktionsNetzwerk Deutschland (in German). Retrieved 23 February 2025.

Christopher Kull: "Freiburg's most famous export". Good.
Priya Krishna: "a European artefact". Good.
Heinzelmann: "the most famous German torte, at its best a marvellous combination of richness and lightness". AGF, offline.

Reference spot check

random_reference_generator.py

import random
import string

seed = 1279117844  # revision ID
random.seed(seed)

# Define the references with multiple uses using the last letter only
references = {
   1: 'f',
   2: 'i',
   3: 'f',
   4: 'd',
   5: 'c',
   8: 'b',
   13: 'c'
}

# Function to expand references from 'a' to the given letter
def expand_reference(last_letter):
    return [chr(i) for i in range(ord('a'), ord(last_letter) + 1)]

# Expand references
expanded_references = {ref: expand_reference(last_letter) for ref, last_letter in references.items()}

# Add 'a' version for all references from 1 to 14 if missing
for ref in range(1, 15):
    if ref not in expanded_references:
        expanded_references[ref] = ['a']

# Generate list of all reference-version pairs
all_references = [f"{ref}:{version}" for ref, versions in expanded_references.items() for version in versions]

# 25% spot check
spot_check_count = int(len(all_references) * 0.25)
spot_check_references = random.sample(all_references, spot_check_count)
spot_check_references_sorted = sorted(spot_check_references, key=lambda x: (int(x.split(':')[0]), x.split(':')[1]))

# Format the spot-check references for output 
formatted_references = [f"*{ref.split(':')[0]}({ref.split(':')[1]}):" for ref in spot_check_references_sorted]

# Print results
print(f"\nTotal references: {len(all_references)}")
print(f"Spot check references ({spot_check_count}):")
print("\n".join(formatted_references))  # Print formatted references

# Save to file
output_filename = "spot_check_references.txt"
with open(output_filename, "w") as file:
    file.write("\n".join(formatted_references))

print(f"\nSpot check references saved to {output_filename}")

A spot check of 25% of the listed references, generated randomly:

1(f): Confirmed.
2(d): Offline, assuming good faith.
2(e): Offline, assuming good faith.
3(a): Confirmed.
3(e): This is an appropriate reading of the article; confirmed.
3(f): Confirmed (above).
4(a): Confirmed
4(b): This seems dated. Maybe we ought to put a {{as of}} template in here, and specify that bi-annual celebrations occurred bi-annually, at least up until 2014?
- Done
4(c): Confirmed (above).
13(c): ~~I don't see the specification to the frosting here. Was this supposed to say "for the cherry filling and the pastry"?~~ Confirmed the frosting to the immediately ajacent source. Mea culpa. Confirmed.

Closing comments

Overall a very tight article for the length, I see no reason to hold this back from a GA status any longer. Everything has been adequately addressed. In the future, further research could be conducted to add writing on the importance and background history of Kirsch, some of this might even be able to be poach (with proper attribution, of course), from the Kirsch article itself. Well done. Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.

[1] Finkbeiner, Hannes (8 September 2024). "Schwarzwälder Kirschtorte: deutscher Exportschlager – aber auch erste Sahne?" [Black Forest Cake: A German Export Hit – But Is It Also Top-Notch?]. RedaktionsNetzwerk Deutschland (in German). Retrieved 23 February 2025.

[1]