Talk:Flatbread/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk · contribs) 08:53, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: DrOrinScrivello (talk · contribs) 18:50, 4 June 2026 (UTC)


Hello, I'm happy to review this. I'm thoroughly impressed with the work you've done on what was essentially a list article before you got started. I'm doing a second read-through now and will follow that with a light copyedit pass; feel free to revert any changes you disagree with. Prose comments will follow either later today or tomorrow. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 18:50, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Prose review

This is generally a very well-written article. I made some minor copyedits, and I only have a few relatively minor comments. Some are suggestions and not necessarily part of the GA criteria, and I'll try to indicate when that's the case.

Lead

  • The lead in general seems to summarize the article well. It's possible I'll have a suggestion about breadth once we work through the rest of the article, but I doubt it.
  • Similar flour-based foods include loaf breads, Since this sentence is contrasting qualities of breads, I think it would work better if it opened with something like, "Flatbreads differ from similar flour-based foods such as..."
  • it undergoes fermentation if leavened, usually with sourdough Reading the rest of the article clarifies this, but I think many readers (<cough> me) may think of sourdough as just a type of bread rather than a particular leavening agent – can this be elaborated upon just a bit in the lead?
  • This is a nitpick and the review won't hinge upon it one way or the other, but the term "flatbread" or its plural appears 349 times in the article (including the infobox and refs, but the vast majority are in the prose). There are 24 instances in the lead alone, with the word beginning many sentences. Now obviously it's the subject of the article and it's going to show up a lot, and in many places the word is necessary, but I think the article – particularly the lead – would read better if at least some of those were substituted with pronouns or "varieties" or nixed entirely (I think the last sentence of the first paragraph could read simply "Many types are eaten globally", for instance). Again, this is not a requirement and my feelings won't be hurt if you say "yeah, not going to do that", but I thought I'd bring it up.
    • Funny that the specific example you mention—"Many types are eaten globally"—is actually the phrasing I originally wrote, before someone else changed it for clarity. I'll leave this statement as it is. But I've rephrased a few other sentences per this suggestion. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧(talk | contribs) 00:40, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
      • Just goes to show that some of these changes will always come down to personal preference. I think the modifications you made are an improvement though, thanks. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 13:05, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

More to come shortly. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Back at it...

Ingredients

  • Eggs increase protein and micronutrients and also act as leavening. Is "leavening" commonly used as a noun without "agent" tacked on? Genuine question – it's not something I've heard, but wouldn't be surprised if I'm just showing my ignorance.

Classification

  • They are docked to limit expansion, This is the first mention of docking in the article, and while roller docker is linked later on, I'd still like a little bit of context as to what it actually is.
    • I loosely define docking in the same sentence it is mentioned—stating that it may involve firmly pressing the dough or puncturing it with a roller docker. This is basically the same definition given by Quail 2016; I'm not sure how to give a more declarative definition. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧(talk | contribs) 00:40, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
      • Gotcha, I think that was mainly just confusion on my part. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 13:05, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Use

  • Is there a reason why pane carasau is italicized but many other non-English terms aren't? I don't have strong feelings whether all should be or shouldn't (though per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC I would lean towards italicizing), just curious as to the inconsistency.

Consumption

  • RTE and frozen flatbreads are common as convenient, affordable, and versatile products. Suggest re-introducing the full "ready to eat" phrase since the abbreviation is initially provided multiple sections earlier

By region

  • Uzbek naan is distinct in its decoration. Does the source mention how?
    • On second thought, removed that statement. The source actually says the decoration is "renowned", not that it's distinct, and the description of the decoration is not necessary as the stamping method is already described earlier. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧(talk | contribs) 00:40, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I think that's it for prose. Considering the length of the article, this is an impressively low nitpick-to-word ratio, nicely done. I'll move on to the source review in a bit. @Vigilantcosmicpenguin: tossing a ping your way since I haven't yet, but don't feel rushed, just keeping you abreast of my progress. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@Vigilantcosmicpenguin: apologies for the delay in getting back to this, been a little under the weather. The above changes look good, though, thank you. I should be able to get to the source review today. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 13:05, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Source review

Sourcing in general looks good, don't see any items of concern. My spot check is going to be heavy on the handful of sources that I can access, but there are enough that I'm not worried about it being too small of a representative sample.

Spot check

I'm going to be checking ref #s 45, 99, 103, 137, 162, 165, 220, and 241 as of this revision.

  • 45. (a) checkY (b) checkY (c) checkY (d) checkY (e) checkY (f) checkY
  • 99. (a) checkY (b) checkY (c) Blue question mark? The article says a lack of fermentation would result in a gummy texture, while the source says Batter breads like crepes or pancakes will stay gummy in their centres if they aren't leavened, but establishes earlier that leavening can occur solely through steam. While I imagine batter breads are nearly always fermented rather than strictly steam-leavened, I still think the article is making a (very small) leap that the source doesn't quite make. Correct me if I'm wrong in my reading of this. (d) Blue question mark? I don't see where the source is specifically talking about double-layered, leavened flatbreads on the cited page.
    • (c) The source's statement about batter breads comes after the sentence Most flatbreads rely more on sourdough or yeast for leavening power. Given this context, I think it is clear that he is using the word "leavened" to refer to to fermentation. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧(talk | contribs) 21:23, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
    • (d) Hm, looks like I was citing the source's statement about pita, but it's imprecise for me to generalize that. Removed the citation and rephrased based on the other sources. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧(talk | contribs) 21:23, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
  • 103. (a) checkY (b) checkY
  • 137. Blue question mark? The source says more than 12,986 flatbreads are currently commercially available, and An overview of the nutritional composition of the most popular flatbreads (i.e., tortillas, pita bread, naan, parathas, and focaccias) launched between 2015 and 2021 in the global market is summarized in Table 2. Tables 2 and 3 seem to indicate that they analyzed 3,481 of those products, so I don't think the article can confidently state the 64% and 95% figures of 12,987 products.
    • I think tables 2 and 3 are only referring to a subset of Mintel's data. Still, rephrased the statement to be a bit to avoid the assumption that their analysis included every product. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧(talk | contribs) 21:23, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Taking a break here, will finish later this afternoon. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Resuming...

  • 162. checkY
  • 165. checkY (side note: I think the addition of a bit of context here would be beneficial – "Laws in Medieval Italy restricted the use of ovens to the upper classes", perhaps)
  • 220. checkY
  • 241. checkY

That should do it for the spot check. Nothing major, just a few things to take a look at. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Image review and misc criteria

  • Article is illustrated well for a topic that deserves it. All images are properly licensed and captioned. ALT text is not a GA requirement but I appreciate that it's been added.
  • Article is stable and written from an NPOV. It is sufficiently detailed without going into excessive detail or tangential information. Its breadth of coverage is impressive for such a global subject. Earwig is unhelpful with so many offline sources, but no CLOP concerns were raised during the spot check.

And with that, I'm satisfied that this article meets the GA criteria and am happy to pass. Congratulations to @Vigilantcosmicpenguin: and all others who have worked on it! DrOrinScrivello (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2026 (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.

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI