Talk:Ruby Tandoh

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ruby Tandoh article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A fact from Ruby Tandoh appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 11 January 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that when baker Ruby Tandoh (pictured) publicly came out, she mocked critics who suggested that she had romanced a male contest judge?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2023/January. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ruby Tandoh.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

LGBTQ+ studies: Person

	LGBTQ portal This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles
	This article is supported by the LGBTQ+ Person task force.

Restoration proposed at Talk:List of The Great British Bake Off finalists (series 1–7)‎

Restoring the article back to its former state is discussed at Talk:List of The Great British Bake Off finalists (series 1–7)‎#Ruby Tandoh. George Ho (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Improving the article

@Valereee: I wonder whether you, I or GRuban can copy and paste the material seen in User:GRuban/Ruby Tandoh. George Ho (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think what's there is definitely worth copying here, if we can figure out how to do it without screwing up the page history. Merges aren't a strong suit for me. Valereee (talk) 20:16, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: Er - wait. Are you saying that you agree that Ruby Tandoh deserves a standalone article based on the partial work I've done at User:GRuban/Ruby Tandoh? If so, absolutely, paste it in, or I will, we'll drop the list of sources on the talk page here, and we'll get to them eventually, WP:NODEADLINE. But if not, if you're still arguing for a merger into the list, then don't, because I would not want the article to be judged on only the partially complete draft, only when it is really done, which it isn't really yet. --GRuban (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no longer arguing for the merger anymore, now with majority votes favoring the restoration. Also, I just gave up trying to revert back when further edits have been made. I'm now indecisive, but I hope I didn't make a mistake copying-and-pasting. I also redirected your draft, but you can undo it if you want. Here is the list of sources. George Ho (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you George! George solidarity forever! I never doubted you! ~~Well maybe a little.~~ Never! --GRuban (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by BorgQueen (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Ruby Tandoh

... that Ruby Tandoh (pictured) is known for her fiery attacks on fellow British chefs as much as for her baking or cookbooks? Source: Basically the whole of section Ruby_Tandoh#Twitter_conflicts. Probably the best single sentence or two are the Irish Independent's https://www.independent.ie/life/the-chef-critic-36551883.html "Tandoh, now 25, has established herself as one of the most interesting contemporary writers and commentators on food and politics, someone who doesn't shy away from calling out the great and the good. (Paul Hollywood, for instance, is a 'peacocking man child', while Piers Morgan is a 'sentient ham'.)" but then there is the Times article, title/subtitle https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ruby-tandoh-oh-there-will-definitely-be-angry-tweets-nt8phck50 "Ruby Tandoh: ‘Oh, there will definitely be angry tweets’ She called Deliciously Ella ‘dangerous’ and Paul Hollywood ‘a peacocking man-child’ — but, Ruby Tandoh tells Andrew Billen, ‘I’m not confrontational’" and easily a dozen or so other reputable sources.
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Atmospheric correction for interferometric synthetic aperture radar technique
- Comment: The contributions of my esteemed co-authors to the article are ... unusual. I love them both dearly; and they are both deserving of co-author status due to each investing a great deal of time and effort into the article, by some measures more than I did; and the article would definitely not have been written without their input, but ... they didn't actually, um, well, write very much of the article as such. For those who are interested what happened, you can see the recent history of the article, and Talk:List of The Great British Bake Off finalists (series 1–7)#Ruby Tandoh The hook is thus very appropriate to the method that was employed in the article creation.

Converted from a redirect by GRuban (talk), George Ho (talk), and The Drover's Wife (talk). Nominated by GRuban (talk) at 00:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]

The hook pretty plainly breaches WP:NPOV: it's straight (and fairly derogatory) opinion about what a WP:BLP, in Wikipedia voice, and not an even close to an undisputed one. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Drat. OK, won't argue with a co-author. Will think of another. Do you have any other ideas? --GRuban (talk) 02:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - @The Drover's Wife: Would you consider something about her responding to accusations of flirting with Hollywood by coming out also a BLP breach? --GRuban (talk) 02:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think that's also a bit of a creative interpretation of that incident (the former as prompting the latter, instead of her referring to the former after coming out) - perhaps something like "mocked people who had suggested she was attracted to host Paul Hollywood following her coming out as queer". The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@The Drover's Wife: Sounds good, but let's avoid giving his name, as we know he didn't appreciate that. How about:

ALT1: ... that when baker Ruby Tandoh (pictured) publicly came out, she mocked critics who suggested she had romanced a male contest judge? Ref: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/bake-off-judge-paul-hollywood-voices-disapproval-of-ruby-tandoh-s-posts-about-coming-out-as-gay-on-twitter-10154280.html --GRuban (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even better. Well done. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review Valereee (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Valereee (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good to go! Valereee (talk) 17:40, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To Prep 6

Evening Standard questionable source

@George Ho: In Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#c-SL93-20230109012000-Queue_7, User:SL93 is objecting to running this article on Wikipedia:Did you know because of two "unreliable source?" tags, both about the Evening Standard. The Evening Standard is used in 3 places in the Wikipedia:Featured article Elizabeth II, 4 places in the Wikipedia:Good article London, 4 places in the Featured article Premier League, 1 place in the WP:BLP Featured article Mariah Carey, 1 place in the WP:BLP Featured article Taylor Swift, 2 places in the extremely important and high visibility article 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, and that's just in the first 10 hits of Search:insource:standard.co.uk, so I think it is pretty clear it is generally treated as an acceptable source for many purposes. In these two specific cases there is no dispute that the events being cited to the Standard are exactly as the Standard described them. Could you be persuaded to remove the tag, please? You are getting a co-author credit for the DYK, precisely because of this sort of contribution! --GRuban (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the "unreliable source" template from the article. I hope those two Evening Standard articles are reliable. George Ho (talk) 14:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --GRuban (talk) 14:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

bloated conflicts section

Nathan37567741234 and Fanfanboy, I'm kind of in agreement with the IP that this section is extremely bloated. We don't have to mention every spat she's ever had with anyone anywhere. I think it could be trimmed back hard to only those episodes that actually are important. Valereee (talk) 14:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna be honest, I don't know anything about this as I was just checking Recent Changes for potential vandalism which the edits in question aren't and I think are in good faith (I forgot to mark as such). I was just saying the IP should check the Talk page before making such a large edit. But I'm gonna say that I agree with you. Fanfanboy (talk) 15:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]