Talk:Dark chocolate/GA1

GA Review

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: Rollinginhisgrave (talk · contribs) 02:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: CosXZ (talk · contribs) 19:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Stable?

The article is stable Cos ^{(X + Z)} 19:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Image check

• File:Green and Black's dark chocolate bar 2.jpg: all good
• File:Spanish-Unknown-A-Man-Scraping-Chocolate-69 20 1-739x1024.jpg: all good
• File:ChocolaterieGrenoble.jpg: all good
• File:2023 Czekolada gorzka Wawel (3).jpg: all good

Overall the images are good and are appropriate. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 19:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

OR check

• sorted by when the check was done on each section.

Metal content

• all good

Nutrition

• all good

Research

• as of 2017, no high-quality clinical research had been conducted to evaluate the effects of compounds found in cocoa on physiological outcomes, such as blood pressure, Where is this mentioned in [51]
• Flavanols found in dark chocolate include the monomers catechin and epicatechin, and (to a lesser extent) the polymeric procyanidins, which remain under laboratory research. Where is this mentioned in [51]

I'm pinging Zefr who has dealt with this sourcing, and will be able to pinpoint it a lot better than I can. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Concerning this source published in 2017, the authors discuss under Overall completeness and applicability of evidence and subsequent sections on the quality of evidence the high variability, bias, heterogeneity, and absence of clear effect (this review found changes in blood pressure of 1-2 mmHg, i.e., nothing physiologically). The authors stated there was "No long‐term trials investigating the effect of cocoa products on clinical outcomes are available to shed light on the effects of cocoa on cardiovascular events", I.e., no high-quality clinical research exists.

Concerning the statement of flavanols, the authors reviewed primary research on these compounds under Description of intervention. The same compounds are itemized in several other locations in the article.

• Note: I would like to propose a change in the format of references within the article. [Sfnp|Nestle|2018|loc=Chapter 4: Chocolate Research] - this format is unconventional in medical articles, and seems awkward, unnecessary, and potentially confusing to the general user. As a consumer of such information, I prefer to see the conventional format for the whole source, as it existed for years in the format, <ref details>.

Zefr (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Zefr Thankyou for this. I am deeply grateful for your expertise and work on this article, especially keeping editors from adding junk health claims for years.

Re sourcing; I changed it because

a) I was using fewer websites and more books/journals as sources, and this works better with page numbers than individual sources or using ref and then separately template:rf,

b) I want to get this to FA and they prefer sfn formatted referencing, and

c) it's a lot more accessible in source editor as you can actually read the text around the sources.

I hate the formatting of the Nestle source, but the reason it was like that was because I only had access to the ebook so couldn't use better pinpoint referencing. Because you commented this, I've tracked down a physical copy at a library and converted it to [Sfnp|Nestle|2018|pp=54–59] which I hope appears more intuitive. If you feel strongly about this, I can convert it back to the referencing style the article used before it was rewritten. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Legal requirements

• all good

Projections

• all good

Variants

• Single source dark chocolates are often from countries such as Ecuador and Venezuela. Fruity, astringent and acidic flavors are highlighted in these chocolates, while flavors of smoke and mold flavors are avoided as they cannot be removed by further processing. Not mentioned in the page of this statements' source.

In my copy it is: "High cocoa content dark chocolate, greater than 70%, using cocoa beans from one source, are becoming increasingly popular. These often use flavour beans from countries such as Ecuador and Venezuela. Many descriptions of the flavour components are provided by the manufacturer concerned. Of particular importance are fruitiness, acidity and astringency. These can be determined for beans from a number of sources and then the best one chosen for the product concerned... Of equal importance is the presence of unpleasant off-flavours such as smoke and mould. These should never be used to make chocolate and can be extremely unpleasant. Further processing such as conching is unable to remove the off-flavours."

I read the wrong book. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 21:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

No worries. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Dubious sources

From WP:CITEWATCH, this source, Nutrients and this one, Frontiers in Nutrition are from publishers suspected of predatory publishing. Medical editors, certainly including myself, tend to avoid journals/publishers with reputations for author-paid publishing and/or weak or absent editorial review, i.e., such sources do not meet the standards of WP:MEDRS. If better sources cannot be substituted, it's preferable to omit the statement and dubious source altogether. Zefr (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I've checked and these are both indexed on Scopus, so according to what I understand from the FAQ on WP:CITEWATCH, they should be fine. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

According to MIAR, Nutrients is included in quite a few more selective databases than most MDPI journals, so it looks good to me. Frontiers in Nutrition is in fewer selective databases but it's still better than most from same publisher. Reconrabbit 19:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Reference and reading clutter

Taking a general view of the article and particularly the bottom where seemingly every publication on dark chocolate is listed, one can only conclude that the article - on a rather narrow topic - is cluttered with sources, WP:REFCLUTTER, and seems to be an exhaustive catalog of publications, WP:NOTCATALOG, to which a persistent IP editor added more 'further reading' today. The encyclopedia is intended for a general literate user, such as a high school student, who would likely have little interest in the mountain of sources throughout the article and WP:REFBOMB of books and journals at the bottom. It is not intended to be a comprehensive research catalog of sources for specialists. I'll leave it to Rollinginhisgrave and CosXZ what to do with this. Zefr (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the bottom appears cluttered largely because books chapters are cited individually when written by different authors: over 1/3 of the "book" references are the same book. ~ 30 high-quality unique sources seems like a reasonable amount for a lvl5 vital article. I'm interested to hear what CosXZ's impression is, as someone coming from outside the topic, and what they think can and should be cut. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave you can simplify the refs using {{Sfnmp}} for example, a cluster of citations are currently in the 3rd paragraph of History ([25][26][27][28]). you can change the source code from {{Sfnp|Terrio|2000|p=42}}{{Sfnp|Terrio|2000|p=49}}{{Sfnp|Terrio|2000|p=227}}{{Sfnp|Terrio|2014|p=177}} to {{Sfnmp|Terrio|2000|1pp=42, 49, 227|Terrio|2014|2p=177}} Cos ^{(X + Z)} 18:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Done this for most. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 10:32, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave Sorry if I have not responded. I think that 30 high-quality unique sources for a lvl5 vital article is fine as long as they are used. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 18:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I think this passes as Earwig shows a 14.5%, it meets MoS, and meets the rest of the criteria. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 19:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)