Talk:Chocolate in savory cooking

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Crisco 1492 talk 20:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Mole

• ... that for the Aztecs, adding chocolate to mole would be like Christians making coq au vin with sacramental wine?

• Source: "The idea of using chocolate as a flavoring in cooked food would have been horrifying to the Aztecs—just as Christians could not conceive of using communion wine to make, say, coq au vin. In all the pages of Sahagún that deal with Aztec cuisine and with chocolate, there is not a hint that it ever entered into an Aztec dish. Yet today many food writers and gourmets consider one particular dish, the famous pavo in mole poblano, which contains chocolate, to represent the pinnacle of the Mexican cooking tradition." - Coe and Coe: The True History of Chocolate

• ALT1: ... that chocolate is included as an ingredient in 18th century Italian recipes for pappardelle, fried liver, black polenta and lasagna sauce? Source: "In the 1786 manuscript from Macerata there is mention of lasagna with a sauce of almonds, anchovies, walnuts, and chocolate... A list of meals provided in the late 18th century for the city magistrates of Lucca includes papardelle... From Trento, in the foothills of the Alps, come several 18th-century cookbooks; one by the priest Felici Libera has a number of recipes with chocolate, including: sliced liver dipped in chocolate, floured, dipped again, then fried. Black polenta" - Coe and Coe: The True History of Chocolate
• ALT2: ... that the first known reference to mole may include chocolate? Source: "The exceptions are equally noteworthy. The lone plate (lak) that refers to “chocolate” is almost certainly, as suggested to me by Shanti Morell-Hart, a unique glyphic reference to a Maya mole or at least to chocolate-flavored tamales... No earlier reference to moles exists, although there would have been many available plates to do so."
• ALT3: ... that food scientists recommend pairing chocolate with caviar, roast cauliflower, and garlic with coffee? Source: "In recent years, flavor-chemistry research has indicated that foods with similar protein molecules should, in theory, go well together... Heston Blumenthal hit upon the combination of white chocolate and caviar... Later, a chemist confirmed that both ingredients contain the protein trimethylamine.... Many other odd-sounding combinations share their own chemical commonalities: Roasted cauliflower and cocoa are one surprisingly good couple; and while chocolate and garlic don’t exactly sound like a match made in heaven, invite their mutual friend, coffee, and it’s a party (at least under a microscope).
• ALT4: ... that some chefs add white chocolate to savory dishes, to make sauces creamy and glossy, balance saltiness, and add greater richness of flavor? Source: "And because they like it, chefs are beginning to think about white chocolate differently, taking it out of pastry and into the savory kitchen, where it can add gloss and creaminess to sauces, offset salinity, or bring untold richness to meatless meals."
• Reviewed:
• Comment: Got a bit carried away adding ALTs sorry

Created by Rollinginhisgrave (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 08:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC).

Not a review for a moment: Hi @Rollinginhisgrave:! Before I review this, could you please revise the sources? They appear a bit messy in visual (no offense intended). I suggest organizing them by listing the article title or the publisher's name (e.g: Sources: British GQ) Also, the source on ALT 0 and ALT 1 haven't sources or link, could you provide the source? Thanks! Royiswariii (talk) 14:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Is it okay if I don't? Sorry, I'm using Template:sfnp, so the inline sources are arranged by Author, Year, Page/Section (if applicable). So I think it makes sense that the sources would follow the format of author and then date. And I did put the authors in alphabetical order. It's also the natural way they are generated using template:cite journal, template:cite book and template:cite web. Hope this is okay.

The sources for ALT0 and ALT1 are for a third edition of a book which is unfortunately offline. For that content, they are the same as the first edition, so I can put links to that? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Link for ALT0, link for ALT1 Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: It's interesting and good to go. Royiswariii (talk) 10:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chocolate in savory cooking/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Rollinginhisgrave (talk · contribs) 04:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Royiswariii (talk · contribs) 09:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	In Modern use section, there is a red wikilink could you explain that? There is an article for it on the French wiki, but not the English wiki.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. 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).	I will review the sources. All of them are reliable.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	I will hold this until Rollinginhisgrave address and fix. Hi Rollinginhisgrave! I'm apologize if this GA are delayed due to my schoolwork. Overall, this is good article and I will approve this. You can promote this in WP:FACGO (See this criteria:WP:FACRITERIA), but i suggest to expand more this article to be considered this on FA. Royiswariii (talk) 09:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC) Thanks Royiswariii. Would you mind dropping a comment on WP:GAMENTOR before you pass this? I think having another pair of eyes would help with making sure all aspects of the GACR are evaluated. For instance, showing that you've completed a spot check, and I saw that you marked that there was not original research before you evaluated the sources. Thanks! Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Royiswariii when you have a chance, I've addressed your comment here. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)