Talk:Torta caprese

Good articleTorta caprese has been listed as one of the Agriculture, food and drink good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 3, 2025Good article nomineeListed
July 15, 2025Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article

GA review

Passed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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:Torta caprese/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 17:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 15:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Thanks for the review. I'll work on it in the coming days. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Not much to say about this small and tidy article, so I'll be brief.

  • "from the Island of Capri". How is this so certain if the cook and date are unknown? The NYT writer may well have translated "Caprese" and deduced "from Capri" as an origin when it could equally well just be a nice-sounding name for the cake. The NYT is often a splendid source, but I think we'd need a more solid ref for geographical origin than a recent newspaper recipe really.
    •  Done This is also backed up by other references.
  • The similarity to Elizabeth David's recipe in her 1960 cookery book French Provincial Cooking[4] does suggest that the recipe is as likely to be from France as from Italy, let alone Capri. I think that statement should move from 'Ingredients' to 'History', with David and the book both wikilinked (with date), and the origin should be left a lot more open than it currently is; unless you can find a historic source which makes a more definite attribution.
    •  Done
  • The 'History' is a little repetitive, as we have 2 explanations both involving "forgetting" the flour; and the other explanation says "adding almonds" which fails to say how the flour got left out in that case.
    • I've removed the latter mention.
  • "most fortunate mistakes": we need to say that pasticci literally means "cakes, pastries", as well as "messes", presumably from the sloppy nature of cake mixes. Whatever, the phrase in this case is a pun on the two meanings, and we should say so, either in a footnote or in the text.
    •  Done
  • "adding chocolate and butter to a bowl and melting them" - the bowl must have started off empty, so "putting ... in a bowl" or simply "melting chocolate and butter together in a bowl" would be better.
    •  Done
  • "after the egg whites have been incorporated into it." - "after incorporating the egg whites."
    •  Done
  • I'm not sure that 'In culture and reception' is quite the right heading; certainly an "and" is undesirable in a heading.
    • Reception is too short to have its own separate header (there is only one sentence regarding the reception), so I've combined it with the In culture header.
  • In 'Variations', "olive oil is used instead of butter," isn't what the source says. It states "While many recipes call for chocolate to be melted with butter, Colloca sticks to a traditional Italian alternative: olive oil." In other words, Colloca likes it with oil; she and the source are not asserting that oil is correct or the original recipe.
    •  Done
  • In 'Variations', we then have the same type of error again: "white chocolate and lemons are used" should run "...can be used" as this is admittedly just a variant, described in the source as "her own spin on the beloved [recipe]", so this should be made clear; it's not a claim to a definitive account of the original cake.
    •  Done
  • The one image is plausibly licensed on Commons.
  • [6] seems to be locked? Whatever the cause I can't get the recipe displayed.
    • That's weird. I can see it:

1 1/2 cups (63%) bittersweet chocolate chips, 2 sticks (1 cup) unsalted butter plus more for the pan, 5 large eggs separated, 1/4 teaspoon kosher salt, 1 cup granulated sugar, 1 1/2 cups almond flour, 1 teaspoon pure vanilla extract, Confectioners' sugar, for dusting

  • Spot-checks [2], [4], [8] ok.
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: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Narutolovehinata5 talk 02:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Torta caprese
Torta caprese
Improved to Good Article status by Vacant0 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 19 past nominations.

Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Looks good. Nice work. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As flagged at WT:DYK, I am uncomfortable with the sourcing for this DYK hook. It's hardly a "hypothesis" but rather more like an "urban legend" that no one will seriously "test". When you go back to the sources, they discuss the claim very vaguely and unconvincingly. This is precisely the kind of claim that lands at WP:ERRORS. It's really confusing within the article itself as well – are we saying that the cake originated in Capri, but that it's possible the Italian-American mafia might have invented it in the United States? @Vacant0, BeanieFan11, History6042, and Chiswick Chap: Pinging. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cielquiparle, BeanieFan11, and Vacant0: How does this ALT sound? ALT1 ... that the Torta caprese (pictured) has been referred to as "one of history's most fortunate mistakes"? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:47, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1 hook looks OK but the article is still not OK. It currently says, "It originates from the island of Capri, however its story is disputed." We are stating in wikivoice that the cake's origins in the island of Capri are a FACT (citing just one source, an Australian foodie channel). And then we're saying the origins are "disputed" and uses words like "hypothesis". It's clumsy and misleading, almost like we're saying this is a deep academic debate between historians when in fact it's just food journalists and recipe writers writing breezy magazine stories – which is fine but then let's revise to present it more like it is (urban myth? pop culture? meme? but not science and not serious history). And if the encyclopedic entry is stating as fact that the cake originated in Capri, are there other sources we could cite? Until it's fixed I frankly am not sure it's main page or even GA-worthy. Maybe that's harsh but that's what some critics will say at WP:ERRORS on the day...and it's a picture hook so it gets extra scrutiny. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, @Cielquiparle:. Could you take a look at the article again? I've rewrote that part and added attributions where applicable. For the origin, I've added sources from The New York Times and La Cucina Italiana. I've removed Cookist but kept Food52, considering that the article was written by a cookbook author. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Vacant0. The sourcing seems a bit better. Could you revise the lede and make sure it actually says what you mean it to say? "Conjecture" maybe? Surely not "hypothesis". What does it mean that its story is "disputed"? Are your sources saying "no, the claim that this originates in Capri is incorrect"? I'm not sure they are. Maybe they're saying "here are some other popular stories that people like to tell about its origins"; they simply exist as alternate word-of-mouth explanations...that I think you're suggesting are completely unreliable and untrue since you're certain the cake originated in Capri? Cielquiparle (talk) 13:05, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think I phrased that incorrectly. No one is disputing that the cake originates from Capri. I've forgot to update the lede, should be good now though. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cielquiparle: Is this approved? If not, what else needs doing?--Launchballer 14:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is better than before. My big objection has been addressed. Might be good to have someone else look at it. Cielquiparle (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Striking ALT0 so there is no confusion. (Not an actual "hypothesis" the article is taking seriously.) But yes, needs a new reviewer. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know from my own editing that finding reliable sources for food history is a huge pain, and that most of the sources for this are in Italian, but I have to ask: who refers to it as "one of history's most fortunate mistakes"? This source says it was dubbed as such by tourists in the 1920s but I'm not sure it's reliable. Apocheir (talk) 22:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's a popular saying that does not have a single person that it's best associated with? I'm not sure if attribution would be needed in such a case, but for common sayings in general I imagine that it could be an exception to the usual rules. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't look reliable to me. The source that we currently use only states: Torta Caprese, one of Italy’s most delicious desserts, is also regarded as ‘one of history's most fortunate mistakes’ (‘uno dei pasticci più fortunati della storia’). Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks all. I truly appreciate it, so I'll withdraw this nomination. I don't think that the sources are high quality for our GA standards. I've opened a reassement page for the article. Cheers, Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pasticci

My understanding is that pasticci means pie, not cake. Anyways, it wasn't supported by the SBS article. Apocheir (talk) 02:33, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

Torta caprese

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) 11:07, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per the concern listed on Template:Did you know nominations/Torta caprese (low-quality sources, which seems to have slipped under radar during the GA review). This is also partly my fault, considering that I thought the sources were in good quality (but lower than rest of my cake GAs) when nominating this article for GAN. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are you looking for here? GA doesn't have higher standards of sourcing than regular articles, so if sourcing is too weak for it to be a GA it is too weak to include at all. Are you looking for new sources? I'd love to help you look, but I know you are quite a good researcher so I'm not sure how helpful such an exercise could be. Is this a second opinion on whether the sources are indeed too low quality? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 17:46, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. The sources are suitable for Wikipedia, so they're suitable for a GA. Neither GAN nor GAR are meant as platforms for creeping change to the encyclopedia's core policies. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well... let's start from the beginning, shall we? When I first started examining sources for this article, I started from prominent food books and I was surprised that I found zero mentions of this cake. On Google Books, I was able to find mentions of the cake in some books but I was skeptical and I did not end up adding any books in the article. Then I started researching from various websites and everything that I was able to find is currently in the article. It's not a lot, but basically, I carefully looked at each source to determine whether it was reliable or not and whether it was a food blog or not. I nominated this article for GAN because I thought that the sources were of good quality. And Rollinginhisgrave, you are correct. If these sources are not of good quality even for GA, then this article should not even exist. It's sad that there are not a lot of reliable food websites, but that's not really my or anyone's fault here. So, really, I don't need help. I know that the sources I've found are of best quality available currently on the internet. The problem that I had at DYK is that some editors deemed them to be unreliable or weak. I did not want to occur any more problems there, so I withdrew the nomination (it's already been sitting there for like 2 months) and came here. If you two think that the sources are of good quality and usable for GA... then I'm confused. I started this reassesment because of the concern at the DYK nomination and I want to hear what other editors think of that. Are these sources of good quality? Are they usable for a GA? I won't have any objections to either of the outcomes of this discussion. I'm just rather curious to see if the community thinks the same as those editors at DYK. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Vacant0, I left a comment below about sources that I don't think are reliable enough for the information. What do you think about this source? Some coverage of the publisher: [1][2]. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 06:25, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks okay to me. I'd say that the article looks much better now. Thank you so much! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the guy who rejected this at DYK, sources 1 through 7 on the article seem like a problem to me, specifically for their use as historical references. Apocheir (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apocheir I've rewritten it around "food legends" instead of historical claims; except for Food52 and Cookist the sources should be sufficiently reliable. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 06:25, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a lot more comfortable with that. The rest of the article is more fleshed out now and that helps too. Apocheir (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Torta_caprese