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 promoted by Ucucha 03:12, 23 August 2011 [1].

Maple syrup[edit]

Maple syrup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Nikkimaria (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Introducing the syrup of Sunday mornings, the sweet topping on everything from waffles to ice cream, and the best thing to combine with snow in spring! The article has had a successful GAN and a PR, and I hope to make this one of the very few Food and Drink FAs. Looking forward to any and all comments. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

Minimal spotchecks reveal no problems. All sources look good quality, reliable. Brianboulton (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These things are done, thanks for the review! Nikkimaria (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
of sugar maple, red maple or black maple trees - I wonder if writing " of sugar-, red- or black maple trees" would be better. flows better for me.
although it can also be made from other maple species such as the Bigleaf Maple. - does this mean there are still other maples it can be made from? If not, may be better to tack this onto previous sentence - of sugar-, red-, black- or (less commonly) bigleaf maple trees" or somesuch
There are others. Theoretically it can be made from any species of maple, but later on we mention silver and Manitoba maple specifically. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's fine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NB: Capitalisation of species inconsistent here. Choose one and go with it - vogue is lower case for all non-avian organisms.
... used by First Nations and Native Americans - why not just "indigenous people of North America?"
The practice of maple syrup production was adopted by European settlers, who gradually improved production methods- "production" repeated. I think we can lose "of maple syrup production" as no meaning is lost.
Sinzibuckwud - language?
home-made wooden spouts - given this is pre-industrial revolution, the "home-made" descriptor possibly redundant?
the sugarbush to the evaporator - what's a sugarbush?
link propane
Maples are usually tapped beginning between 30 and 40 years of age - ungainly, why not "Maple trees are usually tapped from between 30 and 40 years of age"
I've tweaked this, but am not quite sold on that wording. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it's not fantastic I admit. Might need a bit of a play with. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any well known brands? Ok, that's better, although I think I'd be happier with a little more embellishing. If there is any notability to any (such as a high-profile brand that had been around 200 years, or one which is consistently seen as the market leader or most highly rated taste-wise etc. then I think this is worth adding. If there are no stand-out points like this, I think we can let it slide and is good as is.
Also, something more on how it's used (any historical information on the change of its usage over the years?) We'd not use it on savoury things like bacon like I've seen in the US. One slim para on Uses seems a bit small...

Interesting article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly done, will check on the last two points. Thanks for the review! Nikkimaria (talk) 13:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made these edits. Please check. You may want to change the second and third "Acer" (sic) to "A."
  • I agree with Cas re formatting the list of maples in the lead
  • any syrup not made almost entirely from maple sap cannot be labelled as "maple". — yuk, a syrup must be made almost entirely from maple sap to be labelled as "maple"
  • alters the taste of the sap, making it unpalatable — Do we know why?
  • The trouble with using conversion templates is that you get nonsense like 4.1 °C (7.38 °F) where the conversion is ten times more accurate than the original data.
  • more than 9,418,680 litres (2,488,150 US g — so that's between 9,418,680 litres and 9,418,690 litres. Unless that is what you mean, better as more than 9,400,000 litres (or 9.4 million litres) — similarly with conversion
  • a source of manganese, with 13.33 grams (0.470 oz) — why on earth 13.33 g rather than 10 or 100?
  • in the section starting Maple syrup is similar to sugar with respect to calorie content, but is containing about 0.44 milligrams (1.6×10−5 oz)... I'd omit the US conversions. In my own FACs, I routinely do this for small quantities, since the point of the conversion is to help the poor benighted yanks, and figures like 10-5 oz don't help anyone.

Good luck

All done, thanks for your comments. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No further queries, supporting now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - A neat and concise article. Though maple syrup's not the most interesting topic, I found this highly readable. Well done. ceranthor 22:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not that interesting, but definitely delicious :-). Thanks for the review! Nikkimaria (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment This is a really sweet article (couldn't help myself), and I am going to support it now that I have tweaked some wording a little, and you have addressed my comment. but I do have one question/comment. This source, which is cited by this article in several places, says that the early European settlers switched from the grove cutting method of tapping used by the Native Americans to using augurs to bore holes, because that method did less damage to the tree. This seems like it might be worth mentioning unless some other source I am not aware of disagrees. Otherwise the change from cutting grooves to boring holes is not expained. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC) Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added a sentence, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are a couple of inconsistencies with the sourses that need some quick fixing: the newspaper sources lack publishing and location. While the latter is often omitted, I think the publisher is important. Also, ref 44 is missing the date (dates are listed on the page), as is ref 26. Ref 30 gives the date on the first page. Please check the page title and date for ref 33. Some refs, like ref 58 don't give a date, but list a "last modified" date, which may be used. I'm not sure that the ref set up for a couple of sources are accessible (i.e. easy to find). For example, for ref #2, you have eleven specific points that are all referenced to 2 very broad page ranges (a range of 17 pages: 37–43 and 103–113 from the same book) without saying where a particular point comes from (does the "a" point come from page 37-43 and 103-113, or just 105) etc. Why isn't it set up like the Ellison or Eagleson et al references? A quick google of some of your sources like ref 22, produced a date (missing in your ref), and more complete bibliographic info (fact sheet #). Love the article, though. Concise and well-organized, and with clean prose. Orane (talk) 08:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly fixed. The problem with ref 33 was that a new document had been uploaded at the same URL, but it offered updated stats, so I used that instead of trying to find an archive. I'm going to opt not to include publisher or location in newspaper refs - just a personal preference. Thanks for reviewing. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've had a go at reorganizing it, see what you think. Is there anything in particular you feel should be expanded or added? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the short choppy paragraphs just made things worse. I think you need to bring more material up from the body of the article. Particularly from the commerce section. I think I will take a stab at it. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I agree with earlier comments stating that maple syrup is not the most interesting topic to read about; the article is well written and well sourced, however.

  • Third paragraph of lead
  • First paragraph of Production
  • Third paragraph of Grades (two instances)
  • First paragraph of Food and nutrition (two instances)
  • Fifth paragraph of Food and nutrition
  • First paragraph of Imitation syrups

Regretably, I do not have the time to do a more thorough review just now. I intend to in the near future. Micromann (talk) 06:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for your comments! In order:
  • All corrected to Canadian spelling
  • 2011 season (spring), now clarified
  • Another term for Fancy, amended
  • By dead links I assume you mean redlinks? Those are actually allowed - they're meant to indicate topics about which articles have not been written, but where articles are conceivable. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More