Talk:Chocolate

Archiving current discussions

Why has the current contents of the discussion page been archived, restored and then archived again? The past year's worth of discussion wasn't that big. I think it is important to see the history of what's been discussed regarding this article. Please don't archive the current contents of the talk pages. --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 16:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Ishi's changes

I (Ishi Gustaedr) am putting in a description of some changes (in some case reverts) I've made in case any are controversial:

• "one of the most popular flavors in the world" was changed to "one of the most popular foods in the world" which is a very different statement. I changed it back. In either event, it might be that these statements needs some fact checking. (Although, does "popular" mean "best selling" or "most liked" or what?)

• "Chocolate contains alkaloids such as theobromine and phenethylamine, which have physiological effects on the body. It has been linked to serotonin levels in the brain." was changed to "Chocolate contains alkaloids such as theobromine and phenethylamine, which have physiological effects on the body, and has been linked to serotonin levels in the brain." At first I thought there was a grammar error ("has been" instead of "have been") but then I realized the reference was back to "chocolate". It's trying to jump back over too many phrases. I changed it back to be clearer.

• A reference was added to the end of the sentence "Dark chocolate has recently been promoted for its health benefits, including a substantial amount of antioxidants that reduce the formation of free radicals, though the presence of theobromine renders it toxic to some animals, such as dogs and cats." Since the reference only included information about toxicity to animals, I moved it to that phrase.

• A reference to "the Mayan god of fertility" was changed without citing a reference to "Akna, the Mayan god of fertility." There are many Maya gods of fertility so I changed it back to the general.

• In the section on "Cacao Varieties", a reference was changed, presumably because the original reference had disappear. Unfortunately the new reference didn't actually have any information about the numbers cited. I looked up the old reference at archive.org and restored it.

• In the sections "Harvesting" and "Chocolate Liquor", the same reference was added to several sentences in the same paragraph. Although this common information does not need references, I left one reference at the end of the paragraph.

• In the last paragraph of the section on blending, the reference to the CMA letter explaining their position on the petition to the FDA was removed. I restored it.

• The section on conching had the same reference applied to three sentences in an otherwise unreferenced paragraph. I move the refenerce to the end of the paragraph.

• "Farmers in West Africa sometimes use slave labor" was changed to "Farmers in West Africa use slave labor". I changed it back to "Some farmers in West Africa use slave labor".

I also changed use of the word Mayan to Maya, except when refering to linguistic aspects, as suggested in the article Mayan. --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 22:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to reference the edit those changes referred to. It's this edit.

Chocolate good article nomination - a success

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of May 26, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status and congratulations. ——Ryan | t • c 13:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

GA QA Review Probably just barely acceptable as meeting the GA criteria, but I still have major reservations on the organization of the article. The use of lots of subsections and subsubsections throughout the article can be very confusing, and some of them (like particularly in the 'consumption' section, with a 3rd-level heading for 'health benefits' and 4th-level headings for those underneath) make it a little more difficult to discern whether those 4th-level headings actually fall under 'health benefits' and which ones begin a new 3rd-level heading. I would strongly recommend reorganizing this article to focus more on the 2nd-level headings, and use far less subsubsections. I won't delist it right now, because otherwise, I think the article is reasonably good; but it could be delisted at some point in the future if the organization issues are not dealt with. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Citation checking

I've noticed a couple of places where a citation doesn't really support a fact stated. If people have some time, please run through the article and double check the references.--Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 11:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I've found a few more statement in the Circulatory benefits subsection that look like they need cites. Also, a couple of refs do not go to the links expected.
Jim Dunning | talk 14:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Lead concern

The paragraph in the Lead mentioning the various chocolate confections associated with holidays is not fully supported. All of the specific confections mentioned need to appear in the article body and be sourced per WP:LEAD.
Jim Dunning | talk 13:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Pantagraph reference and cocoa growers objections

This Wikipedia article states "Cocoa growers object to allowing the resulting food to be called 'chocolate', due to the risk of lower demand for their crops." with a reference to pantagraph as a source. I removed that reference because I did not see that in the article. Delirium reverted that change stating " the linked article does say that: 1) cocoa growers object to the proposed change". I certainly don't see that in the article. The only statements I could find in that article are:

Hundreds of chocoholics have joined the fray, the outcome of which could in turn affect the livelihoods of millions of cocoa farmers in Africa and South America. ....

Cacao is grown around the globe, within a narrow band that straddles the equator. As many as 50 million people depend upon cocoa for their livelihood, according to the World Cocoa Foundation.

Allowing chocolate in the U.S. to be made with vegetable oils could have an "extraordinary and unfortunate impact" on those millions, Steven J. Laning, an executive with Archer Daniels Midland Co.'s cocoa division, wrote the FDA.

I do see Archer Daniels Midland saying it will have an impact on the growers, but I don's see anything saying the growers object to it. Certainly I can believe that the growers wouldn't like it (because I sure wouldn't like it) but I don't think the pantagraph article supports the statement in our article: "Cocoa growers object to allowing the resulting food to be called 'chocolate', due to the risk of lower demand for their crops." Am I being too literal in looking for objective evidence? Maybe I'll do some research and see if I can find a better reference. --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Some feedback

User:Limetolime got this passed at GA and asked me if I thought this was ready for FA so I looked it over. I think a lot of serious work needs to be done before it could be considered for FA. In my opinion, this is not at GA level either (according to their criteria) but I'll leave that for others to work out. Among a few of the major problems:

• It appears that the article does not make proper use of any of the major written works on chocolate. This is a major topic and serious research will be needed to a) discover what the canonical works on chocolate are, and b) use them to write the article. You have some possibilities listed in "Further reading" but why haven't they been used to write the article?
• The History section is very light and poorly sourced. Its parent article is also poorly sourced.
• Many other statements are poorly sourced, including two major assertions in the lead that are sourced to a local newspaper and About.com. --Laser brain (talk) 14:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree about the GA status: the article quality is not there yet. In addition to Laser_brain's observations, see my comments about the Lead and references issues above. Just a quick scan found problems with citations not supporting the statements they're with or statements missing citations. Right now there are seven Fact tags, and the article hasn't been completely checked yet. These issues should be addressed ASAP by editors familiar with the topic so the GA status is not questioned further.
Jim Dunning | talk 17:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This is great feedback, Laser brain, thanks! I especially like the part about looking for the canonical works on chocolate. That will help us understand what are "obvious" facts that don't need footnotes. I guess we'll have to visit a library instead of just searching online. --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I have sourced the "Holidays" section and I will be adding more refs. to replace the tags.--Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 21:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I checked three of your citations and reverted them. One said the Aztecs used a different word than what the article said. The other was a candy company saying "moulded Chocolate Easter Egg was fast becoming the Easter Gift of choice in the UK and parts of Europe, and by the 1960's it was well established worldwide" to support the statement "On Easter, chocolate eggs are popular gifts" -- hardly an unbiased source. Someone must have figures. And are chocolate eggs more popular than chocolate rabbits, I wonder? The third was that same source cited for the statement that eggs "can either be solid, hollow, or filled with cream", however the article cited mentioned nothing about creme-filled eggs. (To be honest, I don't think that really needs a citation anyway.) Please, please be more careful when citing references. --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 03:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, the holiday section says chocolate is one of the most popular treats given on holidays. Another change you made is to say how much candy is sold on four major holidays, but no indication how much of that is chocolate. What's the relevance of those figures, then? I hope I don't seem harsh or like I'm singling you out; I just want to make sure the changes we all make move this article forward. --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 03:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Beat me to it by seconds — was just about to do same. Also, none of the edits has an Edit Summary, so I was very tempted to revert just because they are all unexplained.
Jim Dunning | talk 03:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Reverting some changes from 31 May

I'm reverting three edits that were made today: [1], [2], and [3]. Comments are on User_talk:Limetolime#Your_changes_to_Chocolate. --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Use of {{main}} template

User Limetolime added the Chocolate in Popular Culture section (at the time, called "Major Works") and included a {{main}} template referencing the movies and books he talked about in the section. As far as I know, the {{main}} template is used when the section is summary of another article or articles. That is definitely not the case here -- we aren't trying to summarize those media articles. I'd say those links are more of a {{see also}}, but there's no point in using that since those links are in the text. I deleted it and he added it back in. I feel like I am reverting a lot of Limetolime's changes and I want to make sure I'm on solid ground here. Suggestions? --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 23:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Aztecs and xocolatl

Hi, Limetolime. In response to my reverting a reference you added for this topic you found another reference and made this edit. While I appreciate your efforts to help get references, this new reference (from ancientworlds.net) also lists the Wikipedia Chocolate article as a source (along with a few other Web sites, but the others didn't seem to mention xocolatl).

I have gotten a few books out of the city library, but they don't seem very scholarly. One does talk about the history and lists the Aztek word for their beverage as "chocolatl", but I'm not sure I trust it. Perhaps I can get to the University some time soon and find a scholarly work on the history of chocolate.

I'm a little nervous about reverting this change on you yet again -- I don't want it to look like edit warring or like it violates WP:3RR -- so I'm hoping you will revert the change yourself.

Oh, and thank you for adding meaningful edit summaries. It really does help in reviewing. --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 03:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Limetolime's comments

Well. I guess it's about time I said something. I see I've caused a lot of trouble on this page, and I'm hoping it can get settled soon. I would like for you guys to list the references that are not good, so I can replace/remove them. Thanks! Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 13:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the discussion. We have been trying to point out the references that are not good, albeit piecemeal. If I have some time, I will try to go through the entire reference list (there are 72 of them to check!), but at this point I'm just trying to make sure we only add good references from now on.

Hopefully you already have a sense of what is and is not a good reference. (Jim Dunning listed some guidelines on your talk page, although I assume you have already read those guidelines pretty carefully at this point in your Wikipedia career.)

I assume some of the recent issues with the references you added (referencing sources that cite Wikipedia as a source, for example) are just a side effect of rushing.

As I said I am trying to find some high quality, scholarly reference books to rely on. I'm not happy with the ones I found in the library. A good, although dated, source available online is Arthur W. Knapp's

• Cocoa and Chocolate: Their History from Plantation to Consumer at Project Gutenberg

Things we need to do:

This is just a list of all of the tings we need to do to improve the article (And yes, it will be improving it for everybody).

1. Add authors to all of the references that credit them.
2. Copyedit article.
3. Expand "History" section.
4. Cite "History" section more.

Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 21:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean "here is a list of things I think we should do to improve the article". As in, this a collaborative effort, right? --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Right. :) Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 22:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I will continue to do steps three and four. Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 20:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Unlink years

In my latest perusal of the style manual, I came across this interesting infomation on linking dates. I know that it is important to link dates so that they format in the correct form for the user. I like the YYYY-MM-DD format myself. I've seen some articles that link bare years and always wondered why they bothered. Apparently, it is discouraged:

• Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(lists_of_works)#Linking_years:

Solitary years remain unlinked (preferred) and should not generally be 'piped to articles (e.g. [[1989 in music|1989]]), especially when part of a date. For more information, see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style (links) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)

• Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links)#Dates:

Avoid piping links from "year" to "year something" or "something year" (e.g., [[1991 in music|1991]]) in the main prose of an article in most cases. Use an explicit cross-reference, e.g. ''(see [[1991 in music]])'', if it is appropriate to link a year to such an article at all. Exceptions include:

• Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Autoformatting_and_linking (aka MOS:UNLINKYEARS):

• A combination of a day number and a month can be autoformatted by adding square brackets ([[5 November]]). If a year is also given, with a separate link, all three items are autoformatted as a single date. The square brackets instruct the MediaWiki software to format the item according to the date preferences if a setting has been chosen by registered users. ....

Links to date elements that do not contain both a day number and a month are not required; for example, solitary months, solitary days of the week, solitary years, decades, centuries, and month and year combinations. Such links must not be used unless the reader needs to follow the link to understand the topic; see WP:CONTEXT. Autoformatting must not be used for the following purposes:

• piped links to date elements ([[20 June|20]], [[20 June]] [[1997 in South African sport|1997]]) (several forms of piped links break the date formatting function);
• links to date ranges in the same calendar month e.g. December 13–17 or the night of 30/31 May – the autoformatting mechanism will damage such dates (30/May 31);
• links to date elements on disambiguation pages;
• links to date elements in article and section headings; and
• links to date elements in quotations (unless the original text was wikilinked).

I guess I'll take pass through our article and fix that up. --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 22:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Main types of chocolate section

This information is redundant, please remove that new section. See Chocolate#Blending and Types of chocolate. In particular, the Blending section says:

Blending

Main article: Types of chocolate

Chocolate liquor is blended with the cocoa butter in varying quantities to make different types of chocolate or couvertures. The basic blends of ingredients for the various types of chocolate (in order of highest quantity of cocoa liquor first), are as follows:

• Dark chocolate: sugar, cocoa butter, cocoa liquor, and (sometimes) vanilla
• Milk chocolate: sugar, cocoa butter, cocoa liquor, milk or milk powder, and vanilla
• White chocolate: sugar, cocoa butter, milk or milk powder, and vanilla

That's more than enough detail for the main article. The rest can go in Types of chocolate.

In addition, the page is 54 KB which is considered by some to be too long -- see archived talk pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishi Gustaedr (talk • contribs) 02:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

For some reason, Limetolime responded on my talk page, so I replied there. --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 02:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

more thoughts

I've REALLY fixed up the Histry section, and the article may be ready for FAC. Please tell me what you think AT MY TALK PAGE. Also, if we had to get ready of something in the article for length issues, what would you suggest? (Don't say Types of Chocolate, please?) Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 01:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No, keep the discussion here so everyone can see it. Why should we discuss it on your page?

I think the History section (and a lot of the other new stuff) needs some heavy copyedit work (e.g., "that brought the hard, sweet candy we love today to life") to bring it to even GA status. I think you are way rushing FAC status; we just got comments from an editor that it doesn't meet GA. In particular: It appears that the article does not make proper use of any of the major written works on chocolate. This is a major topic and serious research will be needed to a) discover what the canonical works on chocolate are, and b) use them to write the article.

Please remember that the History section is supposed to be a summary of the History of Chocolate article. Make your updates there and summarize them here.

See also, the response I left on my talk page. --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Limetolime, this is the appropriate place to discuss the article, not your Talk page. You seem really enthusiastic about getting articles promoted, but this is not ready by any means. As Ishi Gustaedr reiterated, the serious research has not even been done. After the research is composing, then revising, then copy-editing, then peer review, then FAC. Skipping over steps to rush to FAC is going to reflect poorly on you. --Laser brain (talk) 03:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've said this before: I have serious qualms about this article being listed as GA, much less even talking about it being considered for FAC. Yes, there is lots of information in the article, but there are many problems with sourcing (Fact tags have been removed and no cites replaced them, and many statements have no refs attached to them), prose quality, and organization. These things take time. I echo Laser brain: what's the rush? Focus on the quality of the article, not its status!
Jim Dunning | talk 10:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

LimeToLime, I also have qualms about the article. I found several citations you added that don't support the statement they're attached to, all of them from the field museum website. I don't actually think you understood what you read there. Also, there's no indication that website has anything to do with Justin Kerr, who is a photographer whose images might have been used on the website. The appropriate citation would be to the Field Museum and Anamari Golf, as that's whose copyright appears on those pages. It needs a serious sit down and rewrite using scholarly sources, not websites. Those sources should be (1) Michael and Sophie Coe's book cited in the additional references, and (2) Cameron McNeil's book for an update to Coe, with specialist articles cited for details like the genetics of cacao. The citations, as they stand, are of low quality. I'd also recommend Robert Steinberg and John Scharffenberger's The Essence of Chocolate: Recipes for Baking and Cooking with Fine Chocolate. Rsheptak (talk) 01:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I can see that the references were cited wrong; but YES, they verified the claims AND I understood what I read. Why are you guys always putting down my changes? It's NOT easy to find reliable sources on the internet, and I've worked FOREVER trying to find good ones. And of course, YOU guys get the eas job of saying my references are bad. Why can't you guys just cite GOOD sources? If a site by an ACTUAL MUSEUM is bad, then just be quiet. I CAN'T go to a library by myself, because there's no way I can whenever I want to. If you want to cite books, then just go do so, since YOUR changes are always better than mine. Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 13:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This is getting silly. You've asked for and received constructive criticism, much of which you've ignored. If you continue to make unsubstantiated changes to the article, I wouldn't be surprised if other editors start reverting you on sight. It's getting disruptive. --Laser brain (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Limetolime, I've seen you express frustration a couple times at various articles over the difficulty in finding good, solid sources. And yes, it can be frustrating, given the dubious and useless "sources" that abound across the Internet. What is perplexing, however, is your feeling that because solid sources are few and far between — or may take significant effort to obtain — that the more abundant, but weak ones, should be good enough. I can also understand your frustration that other editors may be perceived as having the "easy" job of poking holes in your efforts while not adding suitable cites to this article. What you may be missing, though, are the time and effort we are putting in on other articles doing just that — adding solid material backed up by solid sources. I admit, the Chocolate article does not hold my interest (I like literature and films more), but I (and apparently others) are willing to put in time and expertise on this article to ensure it is the highest quality possible by guiding and assisting editors who are interested in the topic. And at this point I won't bother repeating myself about the focus on quality, not GA and FA belt notches.

PS: If you can obtain access to academic and professional search engines and databases through a school or local library, that may facilitate your search for good sources without the need to travel. Quite a bit of valuable research can be done online.
Jim Dunning | talk 23:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick review

I ran an automated script on this page to look at basic MoS issues and this is what it found:

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. ^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 3 grams, use 3 grams, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 3 grams.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]
• Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.^[?]
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: flavor (A) (British: flavour), flavour (B) (American: flavor), favorite (A) (British: favourite), meter (A) (British: metre), recognize (A) (British: recognise), ization (A) (British: isation), diarrhea (A) (British: diarrhoea), diarrhoea (B) (American: diarrhea), mold (A) (British: mould), molt (A) (British: moult), programme (B) (American: program ).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• The script has spotted the following contractions: wasn't, doesn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 06:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I will run through and correct any simple problems relating to structure. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 06:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this reference okay?

I will fix up the Justin Karr references, but I added another one and I was wondering whether or not it was okay.

• "Aphrodisiacs: Fact or Fiction?". Medicine Net. Retrieved 2008-06-05.

The source, a web article written by a dietician/nutritionist, doesn't actually support that sentence in the article. In fact, it states that research has shown that, apart from whether PEA has any sexual stimulant properties, we don't absorb the indicated compound (PEA) from chocolate so it contradicts the statement that chocolate, and PEA, have any aphrodisiacal properties. The article says that any such effects attributed to anything are psychological, not physical, effects. It does not say anything about Theobromine being an aphrodisiac. It cites no sources, like most web articles It doesn't support either claim in the article. Rsheptak (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If you guys want to remove the reference and/or statment, go ahead. Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 19:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure which disturbs me more: (1) the fact that you added yet another "reference" that doesn't support what we are trying to show or (2) this response you had when it was pointed out. Clearly, it doesn't support the facts being claimed. I would have hoped you would have understood that and removed it yourself. --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 00:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Delisting

The problems with this article have been thoroughly listed in recent discussion, but I think it's fairly obvious it is a way from GA quality, according to the criteria. Main issues:

• 2b: Many sources have shown to have been wrongly applied. Major works in the topic are not used. A thorough citation review is in progress.
• 3a: Coverage will not be broad until sufficient research is done. --Laser brain (talk) 04:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)