Talk:Hot chocolate/GA2

GA Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
The lead seems very short and it would be best to expand it a little more.
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 01:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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:
References 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 22, 23, 24, 27 and 28 are missing Publisher info.
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 01:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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):
In the European adaption section, paragraph 4, is there a source for this ---> "When he returned to England, he brought the recipe with him, introducing milk chocolate to Europe"? In the Terminology section, paragraph 2 and 3 are missing sources. Does Reference 22 cover this ---> "In Europe, most forms of hot chocolate are very thick due to being made directly from chocolate. In the United Kingdom, however, hot chocolate is often of the thinner variety. As Europe was where hot chocolate was first popularized, many different forms exist" and "Even more variations exist. In some cafes in Belgium, one who orders a "warme chocolade" or "chocolat chaud" would receive a cup of steamed white milk and a small bowl of bittersweet chocolate chips to dissolve in the milk. In England, some types of powdered drinks are actually as thick as pure chocolate varieties"? The second half of the benefits section is generally lacking citations.
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 01:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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:
Second half of the benefits section is questionable in its neutrality. For example: "Buy raw cocoa powder from health food shops and supermarkets" should be at least reworded, and then most likely cited.
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:
If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article! Also, contact me if the above statements are answered

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 01:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that repeated footnotes are not used properly. The first footnotes that are to be repeated are correctly formatted, such as:

<ref name="Riches"/> {{cite book|last=Burleigh|first=Robert|title=Chocolate: Riches from the Rainforest|publisher=Harry N. Abrams, Ins., Publishers|date=2002|isbn=0-8109-5734-5}}</ref>

The rest should then be formatted thusly:

<ref name="Riches"/>

However, all repetitions of a footnotes are formatted as though they were full footnotes. This might not make it harder on readers, but it makes it a lot harder on the random editor, and with absolutely no benefits. Could the main author please switch to the less code-heavy method?

Peter ^Isotalo 14:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, both of you. I'll get to work on these and get back to you soon. Malinaccier (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've made all of the suggested changes (though I give Peter Isotalo credit and my thanks for fixing the references while I was on vacation). Could you please review my efforts? Malinaccier (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after reading the article, I have gone off and passed the article. Congratulations. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to Peter Isotalo and Malinaccier who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 01:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]