There are five issues here that need to be sorted for the article to avoid being failed:
The article doesn't always keep to the topic—the book is by Spurling—not about the manuscript book by Fettiplace. Clearly her recipes are set out in an edited form in Spurling's book, but they by no means form a large part of it.
Well, the book is of course edited and published by Spurling, but the two are not wholly separable, as Spurling relies on Fettiplace and the receipts are entirely Fettiplace's. I have actioned the comments below directly to clarify the respective roles of Fettiplace and Spurling.
Examples of what I mean:
Elinor Fettiplace's Receipt Book is a book of recipes compiled in 1604… - no it's not, it's a book about the recipes compiled by Elinor Fettiplace during her lifetime;
Edited.
...compiled by Fettiplace... - her full name (including her maiden name) should be included here (Lady Elinor Fettiplace (born Elinor Poole)) and in the main text. To reiterate, the book was not complied in 1604—it was inscribed with that date, and was compiled during her adult life. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Said that.
Thanks.
The book was first published only in 1986... - this implies the topic is the manuscript book, it's better to say Fettiplace's recipes first appeared when the book was published in the 1980s;
Edited.
The Recipes section would make more sense starting off with 'Elinor Fettiplace provides recipes...';
Good idea. Done.
..., the book contains marginal notes - the manuscript does, not Spurling's book.
Done.
It needs to be clear in the article that Fettiplace's recipes are randomly ordered, whereas Spurling decided to organise them in to monthly chapters.
Done.
There needs to more of a discussion about Fettiplace's book. I found the following examples in Spurling that should be included in the article, probably in a separate section. I'll check the other sources cited to see if there's more that could be added:
Created a separate section.
pp. ix, 29 - it was a working document, and is a collection of her own recipes and others';
Done.
p. xi - the book was passed in turn to other women in the family, who probably copied it for themselves, as was normal practice;
Done.
Not other women? The normal practice would have been from mother to daughter, which is what Elinor Fettiplace would have done had any of her daughters survived her (Spurling, p. xi; Harris, p. 71). Amitchell125 (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Restored.
:p. xi - there's a Spurling's description of Fettiplace's written English;
Done.
p. 21 - the recipes were collected and annotated at times by Fettiplace;
Added.
p. 22 - a description of the original book cover and end papers;
Added.
p. 22 - the copyists included Anthony Bridges; Spurling's description of Bridges' script;
Added.
p. 29 - the nature of her corrections, her spellings, and the book's tone;
Added.
p. 31 - a description of the text being clear and simple, etc.;
Added.
p. 32 surprising examples of what food stuffs are not mentioned in her book;
Added from p. 31.
p. 35 - the book's index was added later, and up to 8 others added to the recipes;
Added.
p. 37 - few objects other than the book have survived from the manor that once existed at Sapperton;
there were terms confusing to modern readers, e.g., p. 43 boyle and walme, which are opposite to their modern meanings.
Mentioned.
The article lacks information about where the manuscript was written, the influence of Fettiplace's mother, why the book would have been written, comparisons with other similar books, her family the Pooles of Sapperton (who she lived with after the death of Sir Richard Fettiplace) and the provenance of the manuscript.
Article mentions Appleton Manor. Added detail on her mother and the custom of collecting recipes. Not sure what if anything needs to be said about the Pooles or her residence with them. Article states the manuscript was inherited. Is there more that needs saying on this?
Also, I would say that Fettiplace's manuscript was not published before its inclusion in Spurling's book, and also it was never written for an extended readership outside her own family, and that the manuscript lacks illustrations.
Done.
Dotted throughout the article are statements that need to be corrected. I found:
(Infobox) - The 1604 date in the manuscript is not a publication date.
Removed.
(Context section) - The article describes the manor as substantial, the ODNB says '...relatively modest...';
Removed.
(Publication) - After an introduction on the Fettiplace family... is incorrect, the introduction discusses far more that.
Edited.
The book contains over 200 recipes, updated by Spurling. - is incorrect, the original text has been published largely intact down to the original spellings being retained. What Spurling did was to work through many of Fettiplace's recipes, and providing glosses and commentaries for each one in the book.
Edited.
The book's full title (see Worldcat) is missing.
Subtitle added.
There are talk page categories connected with the quality of the article—I've no idea where these came from or how to edit them out—which eventually need to be removed.
Consider avoiding multiple links in the quotation—some are correctly spelt common terms, and two are duplicated links.
Edited.
...such as buttered loaves; for apple fritters; preserves and pickles; and a celebration cake for 100 people. - any particular reason why these items are listed and not others?
The intention is to provide readers with a flavour of the contents, selecting items unlike the recipe for mutton given in full.
Critical reception
Single sentence paragraphs should be avoided. Consider combining the two in this section.
Closed up.
Check published books are in italics.
Done.
Consider amending the title of this section, as imo Reception would apply more if the opinions of the general public were known, as well as the critics.
Done.
...only baulking at… - I'm confused here—are we talking here about someone baulking at the idea of the product, the fact it is included as a recipe, or the way it was written?
Edited. She baulked at testing the tobacco syrup.
References
Link Peter Coss; Darra Goldstein; Sidney Mintz.
Done.
Imo Transactions of the Royal Historical Society should be fully linked or not linked at all.
Removed.
Are refs 3 (Fettiplace) and 7 (Fettiplace) not the same sources?
Merged refs.
Refs 3 a b c d (Fettiplace) have no page numbers.
Fixed.
Refs 1 (Coss) and 12 (Leong) need to have the same style. Consider using templates.
See next.
Ref 1 (Coss) is available from Jstor (registration required). However, I would question it as a source—it appears to mention the Fettiplaces in the 14th century on pp. 161-2, but by the 16th century they had become a larger and more spread out family. (see here for a pedigree).
OK, removed.
Ref 2 (ODNB) is a dead link, it also needs a 'library membership/subscription required' tag.
Updated.
The link to Ref 4 (CDW) sends you to another Wikipedia article, not the book itself. (see Google Books link - [1]).
I just linked the author and the title as usual when there are articles on these. I used the print book.
I understand what you mean here, but I would normally expect there to be link in the section to verify the source. You need to include an ISBN number for this book (now done). Amitchell125 (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 8 (ZVAB) appears to be a search engine.
It's a bookshop giving more bibliographic detail than WorldCat.
Thanks. I've fixed most of 'em, barring the ones marked ***. If you have any inputs on those (or feel like fixing them), that'd be great. Otherwise I'll catch up with them eventually; I have Lehmann and Dickson Wright to hand but seem to have mislaid my copy of Spurling & Fettiplace! Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Harris (already cited) is full of useful general information about the topic. From her thesis come the following points to include in the article:
Fettiplace's book provides information about her relationships with other women of her standing, an example being her recipes for preserving fruit, which reveal an interest in recipes of that kind by her and her friends. (p54)
Added.
Her book shows the influence of European-style recipes from Maison Rustique, written by a male author who could travel and meet others more easily than a woman could, and so could disseminate new ideas. (p59)
Added.
The lack of decoration in her book is typical of unpublished books of the period, and contrasts with professional produced volumes. (p66)
Added. One would however hardly expect engraved plates in a handwritten text.
Her collection of recipes was an example of a tool "for personal creativity and ingenuity... ...and a legacy for female inheritance". (p14) Amitchell125 (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added.
Also, Theophano (already cited) suggests:
Fettiplace "most probably began recording recipes for sweetmeats and preserves under her mother's supervision. At the time of her marriage and her move to Appleton Manor… …she brought with her some sort of receipt book." Amitchell125 (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
