Talk:Angel food cake/GA1

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: Rollinginhisgrave (talk · contribs) 16:14, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Alex26337 (talk · contribs) 12:45, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I have decided to try and make the effort to review this article. Do note that, this is the first article I am reviewing under the GA criteria, so please bear patience as I get used to the process, and check the prose, references, and illustrations for any issues. I will comment on anything I find that needs (or may need) to be addressed. — Alex26337 ^(talk) 12:45, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Thankyou Alex, really appreciate it. GA reviewing can be a very rewarding process so I'm glad you're getting involved. For your review, you may find the advice at WP:RGA and WP:SPOTCHECK helpful. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 13:00, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

For the changing reference numbers, I suggest working from one revision and mentioning it. For instance, say "I am working from this revision". Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 15:48, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

In the following table, I've decided to leave a check marked comment at the end of any corrected issues that have been presented, with the exception of the final verdict for each section and the table as a whole. This way, it will be easy to view what issues are resolved beyond a doubt, and what issues still need to be addressed or are concerning (i.e., those without a checkmark). Green checks indicate a nomal resolve, while gray checks indicate that there wasn't really an issue to begin with.

Continue to bear with me as I develop my style and simple understanding of reviewing the properties of good article candidates. — Alex26337 ^(talk) 13:16, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	"Preparation", paragraph (¶) 2: "..., since if all the air the batter can hold is whisked in, when the bubbles expand in the hot oven egg protein chains can break apart." – Do you think you can reword this part of the sentence to be more fluid and understandable? — Alex26337 (talk) 16:12, 25 January 2026 (UTC) Y This issue has been resolved following this edit. — Alex26337 (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2026 (UTC) "In the latter stages of baking and into cooling,..." – The way this phrase is worded implies that the process of the cake shrinking only applies in the final minutes/hours of cooling, rather than the entire time in the cooling phase. Do you think you can reword this dependent clause to clarify that the time it takes for the cake to shrink occurs from the beginning (i.e. when the baking is done and is set to cool) to the end (in which case the cake's shrinkage is in its peak condition)? You don't have to be too technical with this; if you can make it comfortably short like how it is now, that would be great. — Alex26337 (talk) 16:12, 25 January 2026 (UTC) Y This issue has been resolved following this edit. — Alex26337 (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2026 (UTC) "Preparation" ¶ 3: "Other factors of preparation impact how the final cake will turn out. Cakes cooked at lower altitudes are less fragile, but have a less tender crumb." – It would be better for these two sentences to be merged; their current places at the end of the paragraph are okay, but the second one should be shown as an example of the first one, especially since it's the only example that refers to the first sentence. Alternatively, another example to the first sentence can be added at the end of the paragraph, provided that it flows well with the previous two sentences and it is properly referenced. — Alex26337 (talk) 16:12, 25 January 2026 (UTC) Y The sentences have been reworded per this edit, and the issue is now resolved. — Alex26337 (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2026 (UTC) "History § Early" ¶ 3: "..., which was published in Detroit, Michigan." – Okay, I'm asking for advice/clarification for this one. I'm just conflicted on if this part of the sentence is necessary. It is nice that including the publisher information adds context to the fact that this information was created in the northern region of the US, and thus alludes to further information introduced later in the paragraph. Plus, I don't see any grammar-wise issues with the sentence or its context per se. But I guess I just want your opinion on the structure of this sentence (and even more so with this phrase), how it leads into the next sentence, and fits overall with the paragraph. I'm not explicitly asking for any changes to this sentence, but what are your thoughts with this phrase, and how do you feel about it considering the context I brought up? — Alex26337 (talk) 16:12, 25 January 2026 (UTC) Y This concern has been addressed through this edit, and the issue is now resolved. — Alex26337 (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2026 (UTC) All problems have been addressed, and no other issues are present: Pass
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	All sections in the article comply with the standard format. The only list present is in the "See also" section, which presents itself correctly. Potential biased words and sentences are phrased in a neutral perspective or with quotes if needed, and no major or additional issues have been detected: Pass
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The references and lists containing them are presented in a suitable manner and layout, are not subject to disorganization, and comply with the standards presented in the guideline. No additional issues have been detected or bear any potential of developing during this review: Pass
	2b. 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).	(Reviewer's Note: The citation numbers in my initial comments refer to the version of the article at the start of this review, which can be viewed here.) Ref. #2c & #4b: I could not find any information stating that the cream of tartar contributes to the cake's lightness. Do you think you could clarify this through a sentence rewrite or source addition? — Alex26337 (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2026 (UTC) The supporting quote here is from Patent 2015: "cream of tartar... contributes to the cake's volume". Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 01:00, 25 January 2026 (UTC) Okay, after looking into it, I can see how the way I phrased my question COINCIDENTALLY created a near match of what was explained in the citation, but I do have a concern I want to note when I first found this out. While I can see how the volume of a recipe can contribute to, and sometimes be synonymous with, its "lightness", this term did not communicate itself to me as such when I first read it. However, as I continued to process the the information, I realized that such a term has multiple meanings here, in the sense that "lightness" can refer to the resulting volume of the cake, along with its final color and texture. Considering how the word "lightness" can refer to these three properties of the resulting cake, and the fact that they're mentioned more clearly and direct in the aforementioned citation, I suggest placing a footnote beside the word to disclose this (and the footnote itself can be tagged with ref. #4b to place context and direction to it). Although, that sentence already has two references beside it, so it may be subject to what some might think is, excessive, but I believe three footnotes at the end of a sentence is usually the capacity before being considered as such. What are your thoughts in placing a clarifying footnote beside the word "lightness"? — Alex26337 (talk) 12:14, 25 January 2026 (UTC) I think clarifying in text which meaning would work better than being vague and then clarifying. Thanks for the catch. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 12:41, 25 January 2026 (UTC) Y No problem! And thank you for removing the jargon in that sentence. — Alex26337 (talk) 13:16, 25 January 2026 (UTC) Ref. #3, #4a, & #5a (but mostly #3): Referring to the ratio sourced from the article by Greg Patent (2013), the ratio between egg whites, sugar, and flour presented by volume is slightly different from the ratio by its mass. The ingredient list mentions that 2 cups of egg whites and sugar are used, with the addition of 1.5 cups of flour, resulting in a 4:4:3 ratio by volume, give or take. However, the article gives an irregular ratio by weight. It lists that sugar uses 14 ounces, flour uses 5 ounces, and as for eggs? The amount in ounces isn't even listed. I believe it would be best to change the ratio presented, and perhaps include some note indicating that it's by volume, not weight. — Alex26337 (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2026 (UTC)  Self-trout: I found where the ratio infomation was referenced in the citation's prose; that was a mistake on my part, and it went over my head when I was reading it. Although, I still feel like it would be good to have a note on clarity on whether the ratio is by weight (in which case, it is) or by volume (in which case, it is not). — Alex26337 (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2026 (UTC) Y This issue has been properly resolved through this edit. — Alex26337 (talk) 13:16, 25 January 2026 (UTC) Ref. #4g: The reference page implies that the cake gets less tender at lower altitudes, not more. Do you think you can reword the sentence so that it communicates this? — Alex26337 (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2026 (UTC) Thankyou, added the missing "less". - RIHG Y Nice work; issue resolved. — Alex26337 (talk) 13:16, 25 January 2026 (UTC) Ref. #8c: The sentence connected to this reference fits well in its paragraph. However, the citation itself doesn't seem to address the goal of forming soft peaks, or the maximum limit of sugar on the egg whites. Do you think you could find another source to support this information? — Alex26337 (talk) 15:43, 24 January 2026 (UTC) For soft peaks, Parks says "recipes for angel's food universally calls for softly whipped meringue". Contrasting with "stiff meringue", we understand this refers to the jargon of soft vs stiff peaks; For limit of sugar, Parks says "Problem is, angel's food requires more sugar than a French meringue can handle" - RIHG Yg Okay, thanks clarifying where and how the source's information was stated. — Alex26337 (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2026 (UTC) All issues have been discussed and resolved, and any other problems relative to the use and showcase of references are confirmed to be absent as well: Pass
	2c. it contains no original research.	Following the check on criteria 1a, and regarding material from the article's citations, there are no signs of synthesized or otherwise opinionated phrases or sentences. Any and all issues have been cleared: Pass
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	While I was looking through and reading every reference manually, there were no signs of any paraphrased or plagiarized content placed into the article, and it managed to stay that way as other issues were discussed and resolved. As an extra check, I scanned the article using the Earwig tool, and there were no problems detected as well. All content in this article is confirmed to be written in one's unique words, and no copyright violations are present in any form: Pass
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	After completely reading the article, and the resolution of previous issues, I can confirm that this article properly presents the main information and sub-topics of angel food cake: Pass
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	In addition to the proper presentation of this subject (i.e., see criteria 3a's cell above), I did not observe any topics that were brought up or deemed minor, which went into a lengthy explanation with, or presentation of, itself. The primary focus of the article has been preserved: Pass
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	As explained in criteria 3b's cell above, there were no traces of unbalanced weight detected with minor information, or those that could be, or are, expanded in other articles. Additionally, all content that's subject to an opinionated nature has been worded in a neutral form, or phrased with quotes and a third-person perspective (this has been similarly explained in criteria 1b's cell). No biases have been read in the article, nor are there any issues with its perspective: Pass
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	All edits in the article's recent history were for its general improvement or in response to this review. There were no signs of edit wars or disputes with this article during and before its discussion: Pass
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images are freely licensed, and the sources have been looked into and verified. No further issues are present: Pass
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All images and captions are relevent to the topics in each section. No issues have been detected: Pass
	7. Overall assessment.	All steps to the creation of this cake were a complete success, and there were no signs of collapse or deformities whatsoever! — Alex26337 (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Very good work in the angel food cake article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-54309-8 (talk) 12:31, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay, the good news is that at this point, I've checked all of the references, and all the major issues have been resolved, so all I need to do left is a final reread. I'll make any minor copyedits if necessary, but if any major problems arise, I'll note it in the box accordingly. This was definitely a collaborative effort, and we're almost there, both me and you. — Alex26337 ^(talk) 13:16, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Alex. I have gone in to address the 1a points you raised. As a tip, for 2c and 2d, the best ways to identify if there are problems is in your spotcheck. In some articles, running WP:EARWIG can be helpful to identify COPYVIO, although it won't be helpful here since all the sources are books (see User:Caeciliusinhorto/Don't rely on Earwig#Earwig only checks web sources). Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 03:26, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, though I want to disclose something: regarding my check to all the steps in this criteria, I put myself to multi-task and see if everything on the checklist was done. However, due to the steps of this criteria being interwoven with each other, I could not mark a final assessment for most of them until I looked at everything else. That's why it always seemed like I didn't check on everything yet, when in turn, I DID check on the other criteria, along with the sentence structure between the articles and references.

Ultimately, the main issues that came up were with the paragraphs, sentences, and citations, and I believe it was a good thing that I handed a second eye to this article. I commend you for your work in fitting this article to shpe, and I've left my final comments on all the other sections in the table above. And with that,...

...you're article has PASSED; the cake you created was a complete success, and I pretty much learned something new after reading this article, so it was an enjoyable experience to me as well (like you foresaw at the beginning of this review). Now exult, as the boons to your hard work has rewarded itself in gratitude (and if you still feel a sense of ambition with this article, you can nominate it for the main page's "Did you know" section within the next seven days) Cheers, and thank you! — Alex26337 ^(talk) 14:59, 26 January 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.