Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of chocolate/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 23 December 2024 [1].

---

History of chocolate

Nominator(s): Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Chocolate today is a mix of cocoa powder, cocoa butter, milk solids and vanilla, lecithin and PGPR, perhaps some cheap fats depending on where you live. A few thousand years ago it was quite a bit different. This article has come about with the generous reviewing time of It is a wonderful world and Tim riley at GA and PR respectively, I hope it's an enjoyable read. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• Rollinginhisgrave Nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Passing comments only, but:

• FNs 80 and 88 throw up error messages for me
• "Today" as a section title fails MOS:RECENT

- SchroCat (talk) 07:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Should be resolved. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 08:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

I peer reviewed the article and raised a few points, all of which were dealt with satisfactorily. On rereading for FAC I have found nothing more to quibble about and am happy to support the elevation of this article to FA. It seems to me to meet all the criteria: well written, full without being overfull, evidently neutral and balanced, well and widely sourced and nicely illustrated. I enjoyed reviewing it, and I look forward to seeing it on our front page. Tim riley talk 14:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

It is a wonderful world

As mentioned, I passed it to GA. I am not familiar enough with the FA criteria to give a general support or oppose, but I will carry out the spot check:

Spot check

During this check I fixed some errors, and added some information to some of the references: Added first name of first author to one of the books Added location of publication to a few books which did not include it in the publisher name Fixed P/PP errors and hyphen/en dash formatting mistakes Added archive link to the web source this script is very good for identifying these fixes. It is a wonderful world (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC) Reference numbers refer to this version. [1]: no problems [4a, b]: no problems [5]: no problems [41]: no problems [58]: no problems [122]: no problems [125]: no problems [126a, b]: no problems [133]: no problems [137]: no problems [149]: no problems [150]: no problems [161]: no problems Short note on comprehensiveness: I see this source isn't referenced, have you sifted through it? It is a wonderful world (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I found no issues during the spot check, and very few in my recent more extensive spot check at GA. It is a wonderful world (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Support from NØ

Putting down a placeholder. I enjoyed reading White chocolate, so why not? :) My own FAC could use more reviews in case you are interested.--NØ 22:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• "It is unclear when what can strictly be considered chocolate was first drunk" - I found it a bit difficult to understand what is being said here upon first reading it. Is there a way to simplify?
  • I reworded the full sentence sentence: "Multiple cacao beverages were consumed, including an alcoholic beverage made by fermenting the pulp around cacao seeds, and it is unclear when a drink that can be strictly understood as chocolate originated."
    • Yep, that more than takes care of my concern. Thank you.
• Psychedelic drug might be worth linking to
• "Since World War I, chocolate has developed further, creating couverture and white chocolate" - Maybe add "been" between "has" and "developed". It reads a bit like the chocolate developed itself currently. It is also not clear who did the "creating" in the second part of this sentence, and it reads like the chocolate did it.
• "This is considered unlikely as there is no clear reason why the 'sh' sound represented by 'x' would change to 'ch', or why an 'l' would be added." - Unlikely according to whom? Since there is just one source cited, it might be worth attributing if there is no larger consensus.
  • I'll walk you through my thinking briefly. The Coes gave opinions on several etymologies, initially in 1996. One of these was pretty influential (on cacao). Kaufman and Justeson wrote a paper, which is a crazy read because at times it goes into polemic. In it, they criticize a few of the Coes etymologies, but not this one, implicitly endorsing it. Further to this, the xocatl is dropped from the literature, and a different etymology has some consensus. I've attributed for now.
    • I will trust your expertise on this. The topic is way out of my domain so feel free to consider my suggestion optional.
• "The decorations on these high-quality ceramics suggest that cocoa was a centerpiece to social gatherings among people of high social status." - "high-quality" seems to be in wikivoice currently
• "Both cocoa beans and the vessels and instruments used for preparing and serving chocolate were given as important gifts and tributes" - "important gifts" sounds a little bit redundant, since I am not sure what would qualify as an unimportant gift. Do you mean to say it was given as a gift to important people?
• "The Maya then removed the husks and pounded the nibs" - Is the plural "Mayans" or "the Maya"? There seem to be usages of both whereas it is probably best to be consistent. I am also seeing "The Maya peoples" used a few paragraphs below.
• "The bean was used as a symbol for the human heart removed in human sacrifice, possibly as they were both thought to be repositories of precious liquids—blood and chocolate." - Avoid repeating "human" in close proximity if possible.
• "It was served to human sacrifice victims before their execution." - Might be good to mention who was serving it
  • The source's source says "On the festival eve, cacao beverages were served to the individuals slated to be killed as sacrifices to the god to “comfort them”"
• "Spanish conquistador Hernán Cortés may have been the first European to encounter chocolate when he observed it in the court of Moctezuma II in 1520." - You later go on to say there is no evidence he was responsible for its introduction in Spain, so should this be attributed or has this fact been proven beyond doubt?
  • This is not contested. If you can find the energy to get access to it through the Wikipedia Library, there is a very romantic poem about chocolate by William Baer I love on JSTOR [2] which features this fact prominently, even if it gets (basically) all the history wrong.
• "Chocolate was an acquired taste for the Spanish living in the Americas" - "people" would make sense after "Spanish" in this case to avoid confusion with the language, although this suggestion is in nitpicky territory. There is also "Spaniards" a few sentences later so you may change it to be consistent.
• "Its earliest documented introduction to the Spanish court occurred in 1544 by Qʼeqchiʼ Mayan nobles brought to Spain by Dominican friars" - Did the Mayan nobles do the documentation or the introduction?
• "Coenraad Johannes van Houten received a patent for the manufacturing process for making Dutch cocoa." - Repetition of "for" seems avoidable as "of" works instead of the second one.
• "At the time however, there was no market for cocoa butter, and it took until the 1860s to be widely used." - Add a comma before however
• "Quakers were active in chocolate entrepreneurship in the Industrial Revolution, setting up J. S. Fry & Sons, Cadbury, and Rowntree's." - The names at the end could be introduced as "companies" or "firms", whichever is appropriate, just to avoid any confusion.
• "In the 2000s, consumption grew in Africa; in Nigeria for example" - Add a comma before "for example"
• "In 2013 there were at least 37 bean-to-bar producers in the United States, increasing from one in 1997." - Add a comma after "In 2013"
• "In 2005, a non-binding, voluntary industry agreement called the Harkin–Engel Protocol was created to address child and forced labor." - created by whom?
• The absence of a close-up picture of an actual chocolate bar in the article seems worth bringing up. Surely one is available?
  • Uploaded one, just the one from the dark chocolate article.

Nice and well-researched article. Who doesn't like chocolate? Could not be me...--NØ 11:57, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

MaranoFan, I believe everything has been addressed, hopefully to your satisfaction. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. Happy to support for promotion.--NØ 17:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Jens

• Just a drive-by comment: The history of chocolate dates back over 5,000 years – Is that really the case? This seems to equate chocolate with cacao, but, according to the article, the only evidence of actual chocolate is only in 600 BC? I was also wondering if the article title should be "history of cacao" instead, though I do like the current title. What is your stance here? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources describing a history of chocolate treat domestication as the first step in the history. This is because we can't know when "chocolate" consumption began, as researchers will distinguish chocolate from alcoholic cacao drinks, and when we scrape out pottery we are getting evidence such as theobromine, which looks the same whether consumption was alcoholic or not. So we just generally characterize the history as going back 5000 years, even if we acknowledge we may be referring to pre-cursors.

My personal view on this reflects Sampeck's; that it's more accurate to refer to "chocolate" as one "cacao drink" recipe among many, which would resolve this tension quite well, if only acknowledging chocolate as originating around the mid second millennium. She is prominent in the literature, but her critique doesn't seem to have been taken up too much. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. May I suggest to make it clear at the beginning of the lead when the oldest known consumption of actual chocolate was? Otherwise I fear it is just misleading, and readers think that chocolate was invented 5,000 years ago, which is what the lead literally says, but which is not necessarily true. Furthermore, the lead goes like this: The history of chocolate dates back over 5,000 years, when the cacao tree was first domesticated in present-day southeast Ecuador. Soon introduced to Mesoamerica, chocolate gained cultural significance as an elite drink among different cultures, including the Mayans and Aztecs. – So this says that "chocolate" was around "soon" after 3,000 years BC, which contradicts the article body saying that the evidence only supports 600 BC (which is very far from "soon"). Then, you have "Origin in South America", implying that chocolate was invented there, which is not necessarily the case. I think you should make this clearer so that it is not miss-interpreted. Maybe the section "Early pre-Columbian" could be renamed in "Early pre-Columbian cultivation of cacao", to make clear that this is not yet about chocolate sensu stricto. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe I've made these changes. I didn't rename the section "early pre-Columbian cultivation of cacao, as it isn't that it's not about chocolate in the strictest sense, but that it may not be. I did rename "Origin in South America" → "Cacao domestication in South America" as that's a better summary of Lanaud et al (2024). Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

That works well, thanks! Will try to do a prose review soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the diagram
  • Done by 35%

• File:Mujer_vertiendo_chocolate_-_Codex_Tudela.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Spanish-Unknown-A-Man-Scraping-Chocolate-69_20_1-739x1024.jpg, File:Cover_of_Philippe_Sylvestre_Dufour_book,_17th_century.png
  • Done

• File:Pre-1928_advertisement_for_Cadbury's_Dairy_Milk_Chocolate.png: why is this believed to be pre-1928? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:50, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Rereading the source, I can clarify it further to between 1905-1906. Dairy Milk Chocolate was released in 1905. On page 37 of the source (Cadbury's Purple Reign: The Story Behind Chocolate's Best-Loved Brand) is the relevant quote: "The box labels for Dairy Milk featured rosy-cheeked dairymaids ferrying gallons of creamy milk into the kitchen, but with the punch-line, 'Rich Nutty Flavour.' However, this was a temporary lapse from the key insight that it was all about the milk, so advertising for Cadbury's Dairy Milk from that point on was solely focused on reinforcing the brand's grip on milk credentials. A year after launch, the label and advertisements were featuring a pixie skimming the cream off containers of milk in a dairy with the punch-line amended to say, 'Rich in Cream.'" I can clarify why I initially wrote pre-1928 if you think it's a relevant consideration. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Llewee

Interesting article. This set of comments covers the early sections of the article (excluding the lead) up to the end of "spread".--Llewee (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• "Consumption was restricted to adult men, as the stimulating effects were considered unsuitable for women and children." - If this is based on the accounts and images that exist from the time, could that clarified? Giving that its unknown whether commoners were consuming chocolate it seems unlikely that we know for certain that no women and children were.
  • I've attributed, the source says "Furthermore, until the mid-16th century, chocolate was only consumed as a beverage by adult males, since Mayan and Mexica/Aztec traditions held that chocolate was too “ stimulating ” for adult females and children."
• "Chocolate was one of the two most important drinks to the Aztecs." - Could this be clarified? (e.g most valuable, most prestigious, healthiest)
  • I've added "It was a luxury," I'm not sure I can go much further from the sourcing.
• "Although chocolate was not consumed in the same way as the elite among commoners, it was widely available across Mesoamerica at the time of the conquest" - Could more detail be added about how commoners consumed it? My impression from the early part of the paragraph was that it was exclusive to the social elite with a few exceptions?
  • Yeah. This is a really good question. Given the tension is reflecting some disagreement in the literature, I've attributed each opinion.
• "An inferior gruel" - inferior to pure chocolate or inferior to other types of gruel?
  • To pure chocolate, clarified.
• "despite the spice only being introduced to Mesoamerica by the Spanish conquest" - the conquest is linked for the first time here though it and "Spanish invasion" have been mentioned previously
• "The primarily male Spanish population was systematically exposed to chocolate through the Aztec women they married or took as concubines" - The use of the word "systemically" creates the impression it was some kind of deliberate decision.--Llewee (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Removed.
• "Spaniards, casta and Afro-Guatemalan women who couldn't afford domestic servants likely learned to make chocolate from their neighbors" - This is partly a reiteration of an earlier point but we seem to have moved from chocolate being an elite food in south america to being a food of the masses without much explanation.
  • Tell me if above changes are adequate for this text.

• It is clearer. It would be good to know why the shift happened but I assume that isn't specified in the sources.--Llewee (talk) 11:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• "and only in extreme cases did a man prepare it" - I think "unusual" or "rare" would be a better word than "extreme" here.
• "there was controversy whether chocolate was both a food and a drink or just a drink" - The word "about" should appear between "controversy" and "whether".
• "When chocolate was introduced to France is therefore difficult to pinpoint," - it is unclear what reason "therefore" is referring to.
• "it would only be settled as beneficial by 1684" - who decided it was beneficial?
• "taken from the Spaniards in 1655" - I assume conquered?
• "in England chocolate was a commercial product" - was this different from elsewhere?
  • Yes, quite. Do I need to make this clearer, or were you just checking if I was implying something I didn't mean to?

• What does this mean in practice? I assume chocolate was also being bought and sold in other countries?--Llewee (talk) 11:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• The source: "England was a land of shopkeepers and enterprising private businessmen, while France was a highly centralized, authoritarian kingdom with vast, tightly regulated state monopolies. In France, chocolate was strictly for the aristocracy, while in England it was available to all those who had the money to pay for it, and it was on offer to all who patronized coffee-shops. Chocolate was becoming democratized." Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 12:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• "by the end of the 17th century it was compulsory to include it in British Navy rations" - While this was before the England and Scotland political union, it appears that the kingdoms' navies were integrated together in the 17th century so "British" is likely accurate. Perhaps link History of the Royal Navy (before 1707).
  • Oh, very good to know.
• "spread to the North American colonies by the late-17th century" - I'd suggest linking "North American colonies".
  • What is a good link here? This includes Canada.

• I think British America seems suitable.--Llewee (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• Done, thankyou. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 12:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• "was well established among the elite of late-17th-century Philippines" - I might be mistaken but I think there should be a "the" between "of" and "late".

Thankyou Llewee for these comments. I've actioned them unless noted above. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm going to be away from Wikipedia for a couple of days, I will answer these comments as soon as possible.--Llewee (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

• Three "however"s in the etymology section. Often it can be cut without any change in meaning; I'd suggest eliminating or rephrasing to leave no more than one in the section. You might have a look at the other instances later in the article to see if any of them can be cut too.
• Evidence of cacao domestication exists as early as circa 3300 BC in the Amazon in southeast Ecuador by the Mayo-Chinchipe culture, before it was introduced to Mesoamerica. This emerged from research into residue in ceramics, which revealed starch grains specific to the cacao tree, residue of theobromine (a compound found in high levels in cacao), and fragments of ancient DNA with sequences unique to the cacao tree." Suggest "Cacao was domesticated as early as circa 3300 BC in the Amazon in southeast Ecuador by the Mayo-Chinchipe culture, before it was introduced to Mesoamerica. Archaeological evidence from residues on ceramics includes the discovery of starch grains specific to the cacao tree, theobromine (a compound found in high levels in cacao), and fragments of ancient DNA with sequences unique to the cacao tree." I'd like to avoid the current repetition of "residue", and bring the word "evidence" closer to what it's referring to.
• A general question, which may not have any relevance to this particular article: how does this article fit into the subject of cacao beverages? It's apparent there are other such drinks, and from the title of this article I assume they're not covered here. Are they covered anywhere? Or are they such a minor topic that the coverage should be just a paragraph in this article? Or in chocolate or cacao tree?
• "Inhabitants of ancient Mesoamerica created varietals of cacao": I think you want "varieties" here -- as a noun, "varietal" is used exclusively of wine, as far as I know.
• The word "cocoa" is introduced without definition. I think it should be defined, and it's also not clear to me whether you're using it in multiple senses -- sometimes it seems to refer to ground cacao beans, and sometimes as a synonym for cacao, meaning the plant generally.
• "was a centerpiece to social gatherings": suggest "was a central element [or important element] in social gatherings"; "centerpiece" has specific meanings which we don't want the connotations of here. I see "centerpiece" does have the meaning you give it here, though, so this might just be a BrEng perspective -- feel free to ignore this one.
• In the "Mayan" section we've switched to "chocolate" from "cacao" without explanation. The lead talks about "a drink strictly understood as chocolate", but we haven't yet told the reader what this strict definition consists of, so it's not clear why the change of terminology in this section.
• "There is uncertainty about how fresh cacao and its pulp were used in drinks": Does this refer specifically to tzune and saca? If so I think we should say so. If not I'm not sure what point is being made -- we apparently do have quite a bit of information about how cacao was used. Does this just mean there may have been other drinks about which less is known?
• "There is controversy among historians": is it actually controversy, rather than just disagreement? I think the weaker word would be better unless there's significant debate about it.
• "Through various eras": a bit vague -- can we make this more specific?
• "A gruel made by adding maize was held to be lower-quality than drinks without": earlier we refer to saca, which sounds similar to this, as not being chocolate, so now I wonder again about what the scope of this article is -- perhaps it should be "History of chocolate and cacao drinks"?
• "While the highest-quality chocolate was pure, additions were often made, requiring the removal and then replacement of the foam." I don't understand this. The method of making chocolate giving earlier is in the section about the Mayans, but assuming the Aztecs' method was similar, the additions happen long before the foam is created. And I can't visualize what is meant by "removal and replacement" -- perhaps they scooped the foam off the liquid, adding the dried chili, then poured the foam back on top?
• "Today, Aztec chocolate drinks are commonly understood to contain cinnamon": I don't know what "commonly understood" means -- is this a popular misconception? A scholarly error?
• "This cacao was argued to be inferior as it was not the same variety as the Criollo type grown in Mesoamerica: this was the Forastero, which was native to South America and although it yielded more fruit and was more disease resistant, it tasted dry and bitter." Suggest " ... which was native to South America and tasted dry and bitter, although it yielded more fruit and was more disease resistant."
• "Despite bans on importing this cacao around 1630, Guayaquil cacao continued to be exported by smugglers": this refers to imports but then to exports. I think I know the intended meaning, but could it be rephrased to be clearer?
• "the last change an application of the principles of humorism": in what way was this an application of these principles? What was thought to be achieved by warming it?
• "This habit of serving chocolate spiced to mimic the Mesoamerican flavorings had declined by the 18th century": but the mention of spicing it earlier in this paragraph refers to spicing it to suit Spanish, not Mesoamerican, tastes.
• "A fantastic 17th-century depiction ...": suggest "A 17th-century imagined scene of ..."
• "Tracing the spread of chocolate in Europe is complicated by the religious wars and shifting allegiances of the time, but it is understood that it was driven by cosmopolitanism and missionaries". Why would shifting allegiances making tracing the history harder? Presumably the wars are mentioned because they disrupted record-keeping or destroyed records, but more clarity would be good. The second half seems odd too -- cosmopolitanism refers to the vogue for chocolate drinking that appeared in the 17th century, at least in England? I think this could be said more directly if so. And the mention of missionaries is odd if we're talking about Europe.
• This last made me take a look at Reay Tannahill's Food in History, which I have a copy of. A couple of items from it might be worth mentioning (the book is online here), though how relevant some of these are depends on the question above about whether this article is strictly about chocolate or about cacao production and use. From pp. 241-242: There was a Spanish/Portuguese monopoly on cacao production for over a hundred years; Tannahill also says that consumption was "a jealously guarded monopoly", implying there was no desire to export it to elsewhere in Europe. The footnote about prostitutes being paid in cacao beans isn't directly relevant but supports the use of the beans as a substitute for money, which is interesting. The sequence of spread across Europe might be worth giving (though you do already have some of this sequence): Flanders and Italy, then Oxford and England, then France.
• "With the difficulty in tracing the spread of chocolate across Europe, it is difficult to pinpoint when chocolate was introduced to France. However, evidence suggests it was first introduced as medicine.": can we avoid having "difficulty" and "difficult" so close together, and the same goes for the two uses of "introduced"?
• I don't think the food safety laws in Britain are a result of chocolate adulteration particularly -- according to Tannahill (p. 294) chocolate was just one of many foods found to be dangerously adulterated, and it was the investigation by The Lancet that caused the new laws.
• "The process removed cocoa butter from chocolate liquor, the result of milling, by enough to create a cake that could be pulverized into a powder." The syntax is convoluted. If I understand the intended meaning, how about "The milling process removed enough cocoa butter from chocolate liquor to create a cake that could be pulverized into a powder"? And I'm not clear from this if it's the cocoa butter that is the cake or the remaining liquor. I would think it's the cocoa butter but the descriptions earlier in the article imply cocoa butter is what is removed in preparing chocolate.
• "This paternalistic concern was shared by other, irreligious chocolate manufacturers": is "irreligious" the right word here? Or were they simply Anglicans who paid less attention to their faith than the Quakers? And was this paternalism specific to chocolate manufacturing? That seems unlikely but if it's true it's so odd I think further comment is needed.
• "Milk had previously been added to chocolate, but it was expensive and difficult to keep fresh": what was expensive and difficult to keep fresh? Milk was presumably not expensive; was the process expensive? And was the result a chocolate bar or another form of the drink?

Leaning oppose. I'm going to stop there for now and wait till these comments are addressed before continuing. There's a lot of good material here, but a couple of paragraphs feel a bit choppy, as if you'd had difficulty figuring out how to integrate the information you'd dug up into a smooth narrative. For example, "In the 1980s, Indonesia increased production": OK, it's in the middle of a paragraph about production but it doesn't seem to be part of a narrative about chocolate production. And the article seems too short -- 1925 to the present-day is one screenful on my computer, but surely there is more that can be said about those hundred years. Have there been no innovations in chocolate manufacturing? More data about the growth in consumption, across various countries? And a third of that last page is the last three paragraphs, about very recent developments. I can see that as you get to the 20th century the boundaries between this article and one on chocolate itself, and perhaps another about chocolate manufacturing methods, become harder to define, but still it seems data-light. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: @FAC coordinators: Thankyou Mike so much for this. I put the article up at FAC for exactly this kind of feedback. I won't have time to action this until the holiday period is over, so I've pinged the FAC coordinators to withdraw. I might ask you for clarification after I work through this. I am more confident on being able to do some of it than others. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 07:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.