Talk:Elizabeth David bibliography/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 15:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Will begin review this evening.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Lead

• "Elizabeth David, the British cookery writer, published eight books in the 34 years between 1950 and 1984, eight years before her death. " I think "the last of which was published" before eight years would make it clearer here.
  • Tweaked. Tim riley (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• What is a "literary executor"?
  • Blue linked. (Actually, a true but irrelevant answer to your question is, "I am", or will be if I outlive a certain writer whose name need not concern us here; but I digress.) Tim riley (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• "David's first five books comprised recipes interspersed, particularly in the earlier works, with literary quotations, and with her descriptions of the places and people whence she drew her inspiration. "whence" looks frightfully old-fashioned to me. I'd word it as "David's first five books, particularly the earlier works, contained recipes interspersed with literary quotation and descriptions of people and places which inspired her."
  • Blast you! I grappled for ages with this, both when I wrote it in 2011 and just recently when preparing for GAN, trying to avoid "whence", and now you do it just like that! I've replaced "which" with "that", though. – Tim riley (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• "ice". Do you mean icing in terms of cakes or literally ice? Seems odd that ice would have much history, being simply frozen water!
  • No – it's just frozen H
    ₂O You'd be amazed! Tim riley (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Background

• In using the words "magnificent" and "terrible" I think you should clarify for neutrality purposes it is "which she believed was" rather than simply stating it was magnificent or terrible.
  • Done the first, but I really dig my heels in about "terrible". An "allegedly" would be like saying that Hitler was allegedly not a good person. We hold some things to be self-evident. Tim riley (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• I think you should really link Cairo, as you've linked Antibes, I recall though on another article you stated why you didn't.
  • WP:OVERLINK bids us not to blue-link capitals and countries in the ordinary way of things. Tim riley (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Mauritius is a country and you linked it!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Mediterranean food

• Inconsistency in wording with Second World War. World War II I'd prefer.
  • Well caught! When I started editing WP I got the idea that WWII rather than the Second WW was the preferred form. Now consistent within the article. Tim riley (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• No links for Horizon Press or Penguin Books?
  • linked the latter; we haven't, unless I'm going dottier than usual, got an article on the former (which is not the same as the Horizon Scientific Press). Tim riley (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

French country cooking

• Delink "The Observer "
  • Done. Tim riley (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Italian food

• Again delink "The Observer"
  • Done. Tim riley (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• Why have you suddenly capitalized Soups etc? Because they are the chapter names? Does stand out a bit but I think it's OK. "with chapters entitled" would make the use of capitals seem more in context though.
  • I don't think the capitals are needed, and have demoted them to lower case, poor things! Tim riley (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Summer cooking

• Why have you only linked Mauritius in Britain, India, Mauritius, Russia, Spain and Turkey? Seems odd.
  • As with Antibes -v- Cairo, above, though I grant you it looks odd. As the MoS specifically says that its rules are to be applied with a bit of savvy (or words to that effect) do you think it would be acceptable to unlink Mauritius? Tim riley (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

According to the MoS, Mauritius as a country should be delinked..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• à la provençale is Italicized and obviously refers to a style, but no link or explanation?
  • Now linked to the cuisine section of the Provence article. I may also run up a short article on the general use of the term. I was quite surprised to find there isn't one! Tim riley (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

French Provincial cooking

• "Pot-au-feu" Should this be italicized?
  • I think probably so, and have now done it. Tim riley (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Harvest of the old

• mediaeval - I think that this wording is still acceptable but does stand out as an old fashioned spelling!
  • It is my preferred spelling, but now I look again at the book I see Mrs David didn't use it, and I have changed to the shorter version. Moreover, I see the OED prefers the shorter spelling. I may have to change my habits. Tim riley (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Spices, salts

• "Not all call for unfamiliar spices" seems a strange expression, "not all use exotic spices" or something would seem to fit better.
  • Fine. Done.

Writing Awards

• Not sure the relevance of this section, I'd be inclined to move either sentence to the era of the book publication it applies to.
  • I can't now remember what possessed me to include it. It is, as you say, not frightfully relevant, and I've blitzed it. Tim riley (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

References

• Published needed for ref 61.
  • Done.
• Ref 62 title in lower casing?
  • That's how it was printed. Since the 1970s so called "title case" has been largely supplanted by "sentence case" in the broadsheets and quality journals, much to the benefit of readability. Tim riley (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Images

• I personally have no problems with it but I'm sure certain editors on here would frown on the use of 5 fair use images in one article. I think it would worsen the appearance to remove them but technically to illustrate with the covers you need to literally display that they are being use for critical commentary on the covers themselves. Silly, I know, I'm not going to ask you to remove any, but at some point don't be surprised if somebody comes along and robs you of them, they've done it to me! That'll be all Master Timothy.
  • I pondered hard about this, and studied Wikipedia's rules carefully before uploading and adding the images. I think I am within the letter and the spirit of the rules, not least because if this article were chopped up into single articles on each book, few people would raise an eyebrow at a fair-use image for each article – so the net result is the same. Tim riley (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

The lead could probably be improved further, but the article looks fine for GA, has all the major points and is well-written and informative. Nice job!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)