Talk:S'more

S'Mores in South Carolina

What do they call s'mores in South Carolina?--75.82.253.4 (talk) 06:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what Steven Colbert called them, but The Colbert Report used this photo from Commons to illustrate one. Jonathunder (talk) 13:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

We call them "S'Mores", like the rest of the US. Why is this even in question? ~2025-37802-49 (talk) 21:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

How popular are/were these things anyway?

I was involved deeply in cub scouts and boy scouts in the 1960s through the 1970s (and even Explorers in the early 80s) and did lots of camping (monthly, basically including regional camporees, though never a national jamboree). Also my family went on several cross-country camping trips when I was a kid, and I literally NEVER encountered a s'more, nor anything matching the description of one. Sure, we roasted marshmallows over campfires plenty of times, but the only time I ever heard about these things was in the 1990s after some company or other started selling a confection based on them. I think this must have been a girl scout thing, because we certainly never encountered them on BSA functions. Any ideas? ~2025-43244-45 (talk) 01:31, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:S'more/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Rollinginhisgrave (talk · contribs) 08:39, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Alex26337 (talk · contribs) 04:35, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I've decided to review another food article, since there's not so much of them, and because this article seems relatively simpler than the others out there. I'm going to try to pace myself, but also not stress myself too much; I want to avoid a headache as much as possible.

Sorry, I guess that was a bit much. All I'm saying is, I'll try to review another good article (again), while preventing personal migranes from overloading my temple. But no matter how bad I may seem to feel, just know that this is a decision I've come to on my own accord; I am definitely, completely fine with this, and I kind-of want to have fun with reviewing good articles for a bit (sorry for the long speech; at the time I am typing this, I currently have a headache, and that's pretty much the most important part of this comment).

Alright, shall we get started? — Alex26337 ^(talk) 04:35, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Thankyou Alex for picking this up, I really appreciate it. That being said, please don't risk or push through a headache to review this. If it's the type that can be solved this way, drink some water and go for a walk instead. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 05:06, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for caring for my well being. After sleeping on it and taking the time to relax, I was able to clear my head for the moment, and began to properly review the article. As usual, the table holds the comments of issue (I also decided to just use the (?) icon if there's a current issue at hand, with the () icon being the default pending sign). — Alex26337 ^(talk) 17:52, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I've also decided to use the (clock) sign for any area which I have finished reviewing, and only the issues need to be addressed. Although, if there's still something really concerning to me, I'll use the question mark, and the elipses will still be used if I have not yet evaluated the sectional criteria entirely (for the latter, it's usually because there are other issues that I feel need to be resolved first). — Alex26337 ^(talk) 21:15, 31 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.	"Description", paragraph (¶) 2: "More elaborate versions are prepared by some pastry chefs, making their own marshmallows to be paired with graham crackers and chocolate chosen for its perceived quality." – This sentence is mostly okay, but the phrase I highlighted in red seems to make it grammatically unclear and may be a little bit "out of sense" for some readers. Do you think you can rewrite this so that the use and observation of the chocolate is presented more clearly? — Alex26337 (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2026 (UTC) and with chocolate they consider high quality is hopefully less awkward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollinginhisgrave (talk • contribs) 09:39, 2 February 2026 (UTC) Y After a slight copyedit, this sentence is now good to go. Thanks. — Alex26337 (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2026 (UTC) "Description" ¶ 3: "In the United States, August 10 is designated "National S'Mores Day", and in Canada, s'mores are also popular among campers." – Okay, so as you may have noticed, I slightly copyedited this sentence to try and improve its styling. However, what bothers me is probably the fact that the information on Canada stands out in the article, compared to the other information being centered on America. I'm not saying to exclude this, since it is good to have information pertaining to different regions in an article, but I wonder if there is a better way to fit Canada's information into this sentence, to make it feel like it an inclusional part of the paragraph, or rather a "result" of the popularity from America, rather than the fact itself sticking out like a sore thumb. Got any thoughts on this? — Alex26337 (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2026 (UTC) I have led in better so it's not a non-sequitur: Outside the US, s'mores are a popular confection among Canadian campers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollinginhisgrave (talk • contribs) 09:39, 2 February 2026 (UTC) Y Alright, the sentence's format is now in a better condition. Thanks! — Alex26337 (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2026 (UTC) All issues have been addressedand there are no others remaining: Pass
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, list incorporation, and table accessibility.	Everything looks good here; any relevant issues have been discussed in the other sub-criterias, and there are no others remaining that pertain here. The article's structure is in accordance with the Manual of Style: 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.	All references are included and organized in a single, respective section, and are otherwise not misplaced or hanging off. No further issues are detected with this criteria, nor do they seem to have the possibility of occurring 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).	Ref. #2a: Even though the connection of this reference to its sentence is shown, the sentence is written as if there are two chocolate entities connected to their releases in 1917, when in fact there is only one combination that released that year, and it is the Moon Pies themselves. Do you think you can rewrite the sentence so that this fact is clarified? — Alex26337 (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2026 (UTC) I've only changed this a little bit, but I struggle to read it as anything but clear -- I might be a bit too close to the text. Now: Later in 1913, a commercial version was released by National Biscuit Company under the name "Nabisco Mallowmars". Another marshmallow and chocolate combination went on the market in 1917 with the release of Moon Pie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollinginhisgrave (talk • contribs) 09:39, 2 February 2026 (UTC) Eh, I was more focused on the second sentence than the first, but thanks for clarifying the year for that first sentence anyways. In fact, with the way that first sentence is worded now, I think there may be a way to make the sentences flow better. I was thinking something along the lines of, "Later in 1913, a commercial version was released by National Biscuit Company under the name "Nabisco Mallowmars", and in 1917, Moon Pies went on the market as another marshmallow and chocolate combination.", to account for this issue. What do you think? — Alex26337 (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2026 (UTC) Ah, that helps. Now done. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 05:43, 3 February 2026 (UTC) Y Cool, thanks. — Alex26337 (talk) 09:13, 3 February 2026 (UTC) All issues have been addressed, and all sources have been verified: Pass
	2c. it contains no original research.	All sentences have been spot-checked with their references, and all issues have been addressed within the other sub-criterias. There are no non-verified or synthesized claims present: Pass
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	"Description" ¶ 1: "...burns to the hands." closely paraphrases "...burns to the hand." from the associated citation's article (Ref. #11), and I'm concerned that this may violate Wikipedia's copyright policy. Do you think you can rewrite this phrase or the sentence to account for it? — Alex26337 (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2026 (UTC) I struggled with this in the initial writeup, and hope it can be left under WP:LIMITED. Something along the lines of Making s'mores can involve risking hand burns, but I think it reads worse and I don't think "hand burns" is really any different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollinginhisgrave (talk • contribs) 09:39, 2 February 2026 (UTC) Yg After looking into it, and from what you've mentioned, I think I can allow an exemption with this sentence. It feels simple enough and straight forward with its message and idea, and there are only so many ways one can shuffle a phrase before the intended meaning is lost. If another editor feels like this is too big of an issue, they can always bring it back up, but thanks for making the effort and acknowledging this anyways. — Alex26337 (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2026 (UTC) All issues have been addressed; every source has been thoroughly spot-checked, and there are no remaining copyright violations: Pass
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The primary topics for s'mores have been included in the article. No other issues are present: Pass
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The relevant issues have been discussed in the other sub-criterias, and there are no others remaining that pertain to the imbalance of focused information: Pass
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The issues relevant to this criteria have been discussed in the other areas, and have all been addressed. There are no signs of undue weight or imbalance: Pass
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	All edits were for the improvement of this article, and there has not been any recent edit disputes. No issues have been detected: 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 included images are tagged with compatible Creative Commons licenses or are in the public domain. These licenses also show up in the image's sources, with the exception of one, self-created image that was freely released onto the Commons. There are no additional issues: Pass
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, have suitable captions, and have alt text.	All images depict either a s'more or its ingredients, and are properly captioned in a context relating to and supplementing their corresponding topic/subtopic. There are no additional issues present with this article's media: Pass
	7. Overall assessment.	Good work, good article! 👍 — Alex26337 (talk) 09:13, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

clock Okay, I'm pretty much done with the initial review, and have decided to place the article on hold. Once (or if) the issues I've mentioned are addressed (within the timespan of seven days by default standards), I can give it a final assessment. Thanks for your patience, and good luck! — Alex26337 ^(talk) 04:27, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Many thanks Alex, sorry for the delay here. Most of it spent struggling with the burns to the hands rewrite. I've left some comments above, feel free to push back and insist. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 09:39, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing all the issues I've found, and being patient with the review. After a final inspection, this review passes, and is now placed on a 7-day DYK window. I'll be closing this section down now. Until next time! — Alex26337 ^(talk) 09:13, 3 February 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.