Talk:Elizabeth David/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk • contribs) 00:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC) I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 00:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of May 27, 2013, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

1. NOTE: Please respond, below the entire GA Review, and not interspersed in the GA Review comments themselves. Thank you!
2. Writing quality is quite good, however I'd recommend posting requests for previously uninvolved copyeditors to WP:GOCE and also to talk pages of relevant WikiProjects. A few other recommendations as well:
3. One-sentence-long-paragraph as first paragraph in the lede/intro, please could this perhaps be expanded and/or merged?
4. Also, one-sentence-long-paragraph as last paragraph in intro/lede, maybe this could be merged or expanded upon?
5. Italian, French and other cuisines - overly long blockquote, perhaps this quote could be trimmed down, or even just paraphrased?
6. 1960s - another big blockquote, could this be paraphrased, or at least trimmed?
7. Awards and legacy - subsection ends with long quote, perhaps this could be trimmed, or paraphrased?
8. Books - this section might be more aptly named, Works, even if it's only books, it's more standardized that way.
9. Portals - perhaps {{Portal bar}} could be used, to add relevant portals as a footer template at the bottom of the article?
10. See also sect - missing. Perhaps a See also sect could be added, with relevant links to perhaps between three and five articles of relevance to the reader?
11. Further reading - missing. Maybe a Further reading sect could be added, to suggest to the reader books or scholarly journal articles or the like, if the reader is interested in more info on the topic?

2. Factually accurate?:

1. Duly cited throughout.
2. However, a few cites are missing key info.
3. I'd suggest using WP:CIT templates to help fill in more info. For example, cites 66, 67, 73 and 74 are missing author fields, publisher fields, accessdates, etc.

3. Broad in coverage?: article is indeed thorough and broad in scope.

4. Neutral point of view?: article is written in a neutral tone throughout.

5. Article stability?

1. Stability questionable. See further specific questions below.
2. I'm noting problems in the edit history as of 6 May 2013. Appears to be stable since then, but perhaps these could be please elaborated upon and explained as to what happened?
3. Talk page inspection shows no problems going back a significant amount of time.

6. Images?:

1. Image check of the following images:
2. File:Elizabeth-David.jpg - a free use alternative could be obtained. Would it be possible to attempt to contact copyright holder of relevant images, and try to convince them to release license by a free use license like Creative Commons Attribution Sharealike 3.0?
3. File:Elizabeth Gwynne (David) 1923.jpg - free use licensed, but could this image please be moved to Wikimedia Commons, and have more information fields filled out with the information template?
4. File:Norman Douglas.jpg - image on Wikimedia Commons, image checks out okay.
5. File:David-mediterranean.jpg - fair use rationale asserted, but shouldn't really be used on this article. It's okay as fair use for the article about the book, but not really for the article about the author. The textual descriptions are sufficient here.
6. File:Elizabeth David gravestone.JPG - image on Wikimedia Commons, image checks out alright.

NOTE: Please respond, below, and not interspersed in the GA Review comments, above. Thank you!

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 22:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Responses

1

1. Noted, and, as you see, duly acted on.
2. Peer review already carried out, with contributions from, inter alia, User:Brianboulton, who has 69 Featured Articles to his credit, to my mere 19.
3. I find it uncomfortable when sentences of little mutual relevance are forced together to avoid the superstition that single-sentence paragraphs are necessarily a bad thing. Fowler, Gowers and other guides have no truck with the notion.
4. Para is in fact two sentences.
5. Happily, the length of the quote is, by concidence, the same as that of the example given at Template:Quote box; so I think we can take it that it meets WP standards.
6. This is a long quote, though I don't think anyone objected to it at peer review. I have pruned it; it is now shorter than the example at Template:Quote box.
7. I don't think it is possible to cut this without distorting it. I think it makes a ringing peroration to the whole article. Interestingly, it is, in fact, shorter than the earlier block quotation in the "France, Greece and Egypt" section, to which you have not objected.
8. As they are books I prefer the more precise term. "Works" would be misleading, unless I added the many hundreds of articles ED published over her career.
9. I do not know what this means, but if you think it would be helpful please don't hesitate to add it.
10. Nothing leaps to mind. I have, naturally, used the most relevant publications as references, and one doesn't want duplicate mentions of them.
11. I avoid "further reading" lists these days, as they have provoked at FAC the very reasonable question, "If they are worth reading, why haven't you referred to them in your article?"

2.

1. Noted
2. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to identify the examples to which you take exception.
3. I have steered my solo FAs and GAs through without recourse to the citation template. When collaborating I have occasionally had to use them, and I find they don't help accuracy, but just take twice as long as doing the job oneself. Happily, the matter remains one of personal choice – for the present, anyway, though I fear the worst.

3. Noted

4. Noted

5.

1. See below.
2. An inexperienced but good-faith editor adding uncited material. Now amicably sorted out (and cited).
3. Noted.

6

1. See below
2. Having checked with the British Library and the London Library, I am satisfied that no free-use image exists. The one used is a very well-known image of Mrs David – one might almost say the image – and it would indubitably be a waste of time to ask the copyright holder to release the rights.
3. By all means, if anyone has the expertise to do so. The template on the image page would deter me, but I know next to nothing about Commons except that it can be relied on to let you down, as I have repeatedly learned to my cost when image reviews at FAC have revealed that images ought not to have been in Commons at all.
4. Noted
5. I seem to recall this was glanced at at PR. Image removed.
6. Noted.

I think the above covers all the points you raise. Happy to expand, if wanted. Tim riley (talk) 09:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Good article Review passed

GA Review passed. Thanks very much for such helpful responsiveness to the points raised, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 16:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)