Maple syrup

[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's a GA and I'm looking for suggestions for further improvement, with an eye to potentially going to FAC at an as-yet-unspecified future time. It needs a bit of work to get there, and any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 02:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dana Boomer

It's awesome to see this article being improved. My family makes maple syrup (a small-scale commercial operation), so I have access to lots of different aspects of it if you find a need for specific pictures.

  • What I'm trying to do is distinguish between the criteria applied for the label "maple syrup" in Canada vs the US - Canada requires Brix, whereas the US focus is sap content.
  • Authenticated accounts as in written or oral accounts, as distinct from archaeology. Attempted to clarify.
  • Yes, but that element is not as important now - now we mostly like it 'cause it tastes good, not because we don't have real sugar
  • This pamphlet mentions that you can, but I'm not having any luck with online searches. Gah. It's just one of those things you know, but nobody bothers to write down... I'll take a look at my dad's reference material tomorrow and see if I can come up with anything there. Dana boomer (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only source I could find with litres gives a very different number, but I suppose that'll do
  • Not sure. AFAIK it arose independently, but I haven't seen anything that explicitly says that
  • Mostly because I prefer that for naming rather than a lot of quotation marks
  • Neither. Attempted to clarify
  • Don't know, regulation just says "almost exclusively maple sap"

My prose is not the greatest, so for fine grammar tweaking I probably won't be much help in a pre-FAC run. However, I hope the above (focusing mainly on content, I think) are helpful. I'll be watchlisting this review, so let me know here if you have any questions. Nice work so far, and good luck with FAC! Dana boomer (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted to address most of these, with some replies above. Thanks for commenting! Nikkimaria (talk) 16:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Brianboulton comments: couple of points re the lead:-

One other point: it should be possible to avoid squeezing the text between two opposite images. Brianboulton (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All addressed. Thanks for your comments! Nikkimaria (talk) 16:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]