Talk:Black Forest gateau

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:Black Forest gateau/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 12:34, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Bobby Cohn (talk · contribs) 17:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Vacant0, I'm going to tackle this review. A quick review shows this is a good candidate and clearly above the bar of a quickfail. I'll conduct a further review of it and I'll let you know when my first pass of it is complete. Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Vacant0, overall a really easy first pass and reference spot check. I see you've already begun tackling the items I've pointed out. At the time of writing, I just have one concern about the timliness of the source and the Wikivoice use in the article, you'll see my comment in the #Reference spot check section. I'm also curious to know what your thoughts are on expanding or explaining the significance and the use of Kirsch in Black Forest gateau? Bobby Cohn (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I appreciate it a lot. I think that I've addressed everything now. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Summary

I'll use this section to track the progress and substitute the template when we're complete.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear, concise and understandable to an appropriately broad audience, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. 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:

   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):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. 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):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

First pass comments

I'll leave a list of concerning items here. Minor corrections can just be checked as {{done}} or something quick and convenient if you'd like. Anything more than a quick correction or comment, I'll leave a signature to allow for easier discussion. I'll ask you do the same.

History

• A claim of "first" in "The first written recipe of Black Forest gateau appeared in 1927", appears to be well sourced to The Oxford Companion to Sugar and Sweets. (Oxford University Press). Will be sure to verify in source assessment. (1b, 2b)  AGF: offline source, see #Quotes below.
• Awkward use of the word "therefore" implies the reader understands "protected by the European Commission" means, it may be better to rephrase and state in a simpler term. (1a)
  • I've replaced it with "thus". I'm unsure how to rephrase that part differently.
    •  Good.
• Sentence starting with "In Todtnauberg, ..." awkwardly appends the paragraph dedicated to history without adding more details. Is it located in this section/paragraph because it was started at a specific point (i.e.:). Suggested that this be expanded or moved. (3a, 3b) Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Moved to reception. There is no more coverage in RS besides it being mentioned. We do not know when the festival started.
    •  Good.

Ingredients and preparation

Pretty good and simple section overall. No glaring issues.

• As I'm continuing to read and re-read this, I'm understanding the importance of Kirsch in the recipe and history. Might be beneficial to introduce this to the reader more explicitly earlier in the article. Not sure if I have a suggestion fully fleshed out yet or there's some more room to expand here. I'd be interested in your thoughts. (3a) Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
  • I've looked through sources again and sadly there's no too much discussion about it besides being mentioned as one of the key ingredients of the cake. I've, however, introduced it much earlier in the article. It now reads: "He made the cake by mixing Kirsch schnapps, a cherry brandy". Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

    That's fair. Thanks for your response. Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Variations

No issues. Note for later when checking references, I presume that the first sentence in the section will be verified using the citation at the end of the second sentence. (2b)  Good.

Reception

No issues. Note for later that the quotations will need to be verified. (2b)  Good. See #Quotes below.

Lead

• After reading the whole article, I think it would be beneficial to comment on the importance of the Kirsch. (3a, 3b)

Reference checks

Quotes

• "The first written recipe of Black Forest gateau appeared in 1927." I see (a google translate of) the second source says:

  "However, a written proof of the cherry cake of Keller can only be found in 1927/1928 in a recipe book, which is still kept in the municipal archive of Radolfzell."

The other is an offline source. Is the above a fair translation of the German or is some other context missing? So to this point, my question is there something that explicitly states "the first written recipe"? Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

• Heinzelmann mentions in the book that it was the first written recipe and that it appeared in 1927.
  •  AGF.

References

• Christopher Kull: "Freiburg's most famous export".  Good.
• Priya Krishna: "a European artefact".  Good.
• Heinzelmann: "the most famous German torte, at its best a marvellous combination of richness and lightness".  AGF, offline.

Reference spot check

A spot check of 25% of the listed references, generated randomly:

• 1(f): Confirmed.
• 2(d): Offline, assuming good faith.
• 2(e): Offline, assuming good faith.
• 3(a): Confirmed.
• 3(e): This is an appropriate reading of the article; confirmed.
• 3(f): Confirmed (above).
• 4(a): Confirmed
• 4(b): This seems dated. Maybe we ought to put a {{as of}} template in here, and specify that bi-annual celebrations occurred bi-annually, at least up until 2014?
  •  Done
• 4(c): Confirmed (above).
• 13(c): I don't see the specification to the frosting here. Was this supposed to say "for the cherry filling and the pastry"? Confirmed the frosting to the immediately ajacent source. Mea culpa. Confirmed.

Closing comments

Overall a very tight article for the length, I see no reason to hold this back from a GA status any longer. Everything has been adequately addressed. In the future, further research could be conducted to add writing on the importance and background history of Kirsch, some of this might even be able to be poach (with proper attribution, of course), from the Kirsch article itself. Well done. Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2025 (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.

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 Sohom Datta talk 18:04, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Black Forest gateau

• ... that Black Forest gateau inspired an internet meme? Source: LeJacq, Yannick (24 April 2013). "The 'Portal' Cake Is Not a Lie ... Almost". NBC News. Retrieved 14 February 2025.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Hardwired (Metallica song)

Improved to Good Article status by Vacant0 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 16 past nominations.

Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 7 March 2025 (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: Done.

Overall: Everything looks good. Thanks for this GA -- food is oddly under-covered on Wikipedia. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

"In Popular Culture"

Should we add a "In Popular Culture" section where we mention popular movies and media presenting this cake. It is for example the cake shown in the Hit Valve Game "Portal" Mecanautes (talk) 07:57, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Portal is already mentioned in the article. However, I did not find other mentions of popular culture in reliable sources. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)