Talk:Clementine cake

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Clementine cake/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 02:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

A nice read. Will review. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 02:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• Could we link orange muscat, white dessert wine, Riesling wine and tangerine oil? I do not think we come across these terms as commonly as milk or butter.

•  Done as much as possible. dessert wine and Riesling are now linked. There are no articles for tangerine oil or orange muscat. The closest article for the latter is Muscat (grape), but this does not appear to be related. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• Do we have no inline citation to support the part "and vanilla extract"?

•  Done. Moved a citation, which mentions both almond and vanilla extracts. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• Some variations exist If this is a regional variation, then where is flour not used to make the cake? Would be an interesting addition.

• From a source review, the variations are not regional in nature, they're simply variations on how the cake can be prepared. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• and can fall if it's In articles, I guess "it is" should look better.

•  Done. Rewrote to "it is". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• I think an infobox would do great here (like the one at Cincinnati chili).

•  Done. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• I think "Preparation and variations" would be a better name for the "Overview" section.

•  Done. That works for me too. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• The citations are well-formatted, and the sources highly reliable. Good job!

• Thanks! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• Can we have more information on the origin, chemical composition or nutrition and the history of the cake? It is not necessary, but would do this article tremendous good. The Baker's Four Seasons: Baking by the Season, Harvest, and Occasion source claims that it is a rich source of Vitamin D, which would be a great addition.

• I have added "It may provide significant amounts of Vitamin D" (and a source) to the lead. Nutritional information varies greatly among various cake varieties (e.g. see [1]), and many of the available sources are not reliable. As such, it seems best to include the minor addition to the lead, rather than have a nutritional information section that only contains this brief information.

Regarding the origins, composition, etc., not much more information is available. During the process of creating and expanding the article, I pretty much used up all of the reliable sources that are available online (e.g. from Google Books, Google News, Highbeam, etc.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• I like the graphical presentation at Crab dip. The images in our article are a bit stacked above one another, so the gallery arrangement would certainly be better.

• After addition of the infobox, I modified the image layout. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Northamerica1000, I believe we have no issue left. I shall be happy to promote this. Thanks once again for your rapid response! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 03:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Article sourcing

@The Banner The sources that I've removed are not appropriate for food articles. Sources like [1], [4], [5], and [6] do not speak at all about the notability of this dessert and should be removed. I would've nominated this dessert for deletion, but the fact that it's currently a good article suggests to me that it should be kept in some fashion, which is why I began cleaning it by removing the inappropriate sources. BaduFerreira (talk) 14:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

For your information: sources are also used to back up information in the article. They can be used for that even without contributing to the notability. The Banner talk 15:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

This is also a so called "Good Article". what makes that it is extensively viewed and reviewed. Including if sources back up the facts and are appropriate. The Banner talk 15:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee Are you able to find any sources that back up this cake's notability? You seem to have better luck with finding sources for niche cakes than I do. BaduFerreira (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

BF, so apologies in advance, this is going to be a little long. Food is difficult.

• Simple recipes can't be used to show notability, but that doesn't mean those from RS can't be used at all. This is true for all articles: not every source has to support notability. We only need three of those, at most. Other non-SIGCOV RS can be used to fill in the gaps. Even self-sources and in some cases primary sources can be used for that. Such sources shouldn't be removed unless they're not reliable, not supporting the content they are being used to support, or in the case of controversial information, not independent.
• Even apparent recipes can be difficult; many sites (NPR, NYT, Serious Eats, Tasting Table, and a ton of cookbooks) will give lengthy discussion of the dish, but from a first glance it looks like the source is a recipe. Any RS that is discussing the dish at length can be used to support a claim of notability.
• In many cultures there isn't professional food journalism or food academe. The fact a dish hasn't been covered heavily isn't necessarily an indication the dish isn't notable. Even a short description that describes the dish as a national dish, a traditional dish, a regional specialty, or one often associated with or served at certain celebrations is a plausible claim to notability.
• A complicating factor to the above is that many dishes have different names in different cuisines, and many of those cuisines will render the dish in a different alphabet; all of this makes searching difficult.
• When you see a source being used multiple times, it can be an indication that source is giving lengthy discussion. Not always true, but it's not a bad rule of thumb.
• If you google the dish and see dozens or hundreds of recipes, it's an indication the dish may be notable. Again not always true but not a bad rule of thumb when you're first scanning the refs.

What makes you think the cake isn't notable? Valereee (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Difficult indeed... I've been focusing on food recently when I was brought here through some work I did on Brazilian foods and I haven't been able to find my way out :) That being said, I don't think this cake is notable because there isn't a single source in this article that speaks about it at length. Please double check that assertion because my goal here isn't to nuke random articles, but really to just remove non-notable dishes that have survived until now. The only source that may prove this cake's notability is the Encyclopedia of Jewish Food one and I unfortunately can't access it.

The bulk of this article comes from recipes which is fine if we've proved the notability but again this article doesn't utilize any sources that contain WP:SIGCOV of this cake. The entirety of this cake's supposed notability comes from the statement in the article that it's "probably related" (direct quote) to an ancient Jewish cake and that it appeared in a 2013 movie. I think the only path forward here for notability is proving that this cake is notable in American cuisine or rewriting this article to instead talk about the Shepardic orange cake that it's supposedly a variation of.

On another note, I hope all the editing on our food articles that I've been doing hasn't been misconstrued as malicious or (overly) destructive. It seems like a lot of our food articles aren't in the best of shape so I may admittedly make some false judgement in my quest to improve the overall quality of things. BaduFerreira (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

If it's the modern version of an ancient cake, I would assume it's notable right from the start. It's not absolute proof, but it's a very, very strong indicator. I'm not really up for checking 20 sources, some of which I don't have access to, unless it gets nom'd for deletion. It's quite possible this cake is a sort of cusp topic, but ancient cake + Walter Mitty + Nigella Lawson + many online recipes...personally I'd let it go.

No, you don't appear malicious. :) Maybe a bit overenthusiastic about deletion, but many editors lean that way. Valereee (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'll nominate it for deletion then so that we can get more thoughts on if this passes WP:GNG. BaduFerreira (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Now you do kind of sound malicious. Valereee (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Clementine cake

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 • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I noticed it from the recent AFD, where I also mentioned that it needs a reassessment. The article is surprisingly so brief for a GA. It has just 3 sections, the last 2 (History and In Popular Culture) are tiny. I understand that for an article of a cake, this one's above the average quality, sure, but I'm not sure that it merits a GA status. Speaking on technical terms, it fails criteria 3: "Broad in its coverage" - for the reasons mentioned above. NB: It was assessed 8 years ago X (talk) 08:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

• During the process of creating and expanding the article, I pretty much used up all of the reliable sources that were available online at that time (e.g. from Google Books, Google News, Highbeam, etc.) Personally, I don't view the article or its sections as short or "tiny". For a cake article, it is very comprehensive as well as informative, relative to the actual sources available for the topic. Regarding the In popular culture (IPC) section, extensive listings are actually discouraged. There's even a template for overly long IPC sections in articles: {{In popular culture}}. See also: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections and Wikipedia:Handling trivia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC) (Article creator)
• I think over the years -- and especially during the recent AfD, when there were multiple edits including additions from now-available sources -- the narrative flow has suffered. And the images could be improved. But the coverage isn't incomplete, it's all cited and verifiable, other than the recent AfD and those edits it's stable, it's neutral. Agree with NA1000 that we don't actually want any pop culture section to be longer than is strictly needed. And that applies to the article in general -- broad coverage doesn't require a certain length. I'm not sure this is a fail, it's just a GA that needs to tending to. Valereee (talk) 11:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  I've improved the images and narrative flow. Valereee (talk) 11:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.