Wikipedia:Peer review/White chocolate/archive1

White chocolate

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

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)[reply]

Why is the US the only country to warrant its own section? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Some images are missing alt texts. Done
For {{nutritional value}}, |note= is used for serving size; if USDA is the source, |source= should be used Done

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)[reply]
    - 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)[reply]
      - Have you tried |noRDA=? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        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)[reply]

Some books include publication locations, others don't. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
    - 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)[reply]
      - 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)[reply]

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[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

"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)[reply]
"which were then being produced in excess" - in what context? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What variety of English is the article using?
Is there a reason Northumberland in particular was against the chocolate descriptor? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:50, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]