This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Africa: Sao Tome & Principe Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Sao Tome and Principe (assessed as High-importance). Agriculture Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cocoa harvested in São Tomé and Príncipe

• ... that São Tomé and Príncipe were known as "the Chocolate Islands" in the early 1900s, when they were the world's top exporters of cocoa (samples pictured)?

• ALT1: ... that São Tomé and Príncipe was known as "the Chocolate Islands" in the early 1900s, when it was the world's top exporter of cocoa (samples pictured)? Source: Same as above.
• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Emmanuella Atora
• Comment: Technically, São Tomé and Príncipe is a singular country (a Portuguese colony at the time mentioned in the hook). The hook should therefore use singular conjugations of verbs, but it sounded too odd upon my initial reading. I thus changed the verbs to their plural conjugations, as if the islands themselves are being described rather than the modern country or the former colony. I have nonetheless included my original wording as ALT1, in case the reviewer or promoter wants to compare the two.

Yue 🌙 07:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC). reply

• Hi Yue, review follows: article created 3 July and exceeds minimum length; I reworded one sentence slightly to move it further from the source, but otherwise I don't think there is an issue with overly close paraphrasing; article is cited inline throughout to what look to be reliable sources for the subject; hook fact is interesting, mentioned in the article and checks out to source cited (BBC); a QPQ has been provided; image is properly licensed and looks fine. I changed from single to double quotation marks in the hooks to match the article and, I think, our MOS. In terms of plurals I think English_plurals#Geographical_plurals_used_as_singular discusses this; either alternative sounds OK to me but British English tends to be a bit more flexible than US English on this (see eg. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Plurals) - Dumelow ( talk) 09:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Dumelow: Thank you for taking the time to do this review! On second thought, maybe ALT1 is the better choice because ALT0 implies that there were two exporters instead of one. Yue 🌙 02:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply