Talk:George Hill (chef)

I am a volunteer wikipedia editor who is completely independent from the subject. I just met the original author, George Hill, in #wikipedia-en-help, answering his request for copyediting, to fulfill the requirements against autobiographical bias. I'm not even a chef! ;) I then went on to substantially copyedit and rearrange the entire article and most of the citations, and I've spent literally all night on this without finding any showstopper flaws (except maybe the photo).

Reliable Citations: The article came to me in good shape, with a NPOV in my opinion, and was exquisitely well cited. It's just dominated by reliable citations. He has cited books, which serve as citations for his web sites (or those he influenced). He has countless volumes of independent and authoritative print media written specifically about his mastery of the field. I painstakingly followed the leftmost column of his citations, read the sources, and streamlined the citation syntax. I didn't follow the second half of citations that far, but they seem to be linking to reliable sources.

Notability: The subject is one of only seven living holders, in his country, of the highest title in his entire field (black hat chef). He has written books which have been independently published. He has several of the highest accolades in the field. He is at the highest level of everything, the best of the best, according to these sources and accolades.

I guess, ideally, there would be a better organization of the career content, perhaps in a more explicit timeline, or organized by "business", "teaching", "education" or something like that *if* that was possible, but that's ok if not.

Update: I have received advanced copyediting feedback, and I'm working on it. The following suggestions are the opinion of another advanced copyeditor. The idea is that the article has major promise, and may or may not pass AfC, but these would improve it a lot. So it'd be worth doing this anyway just in case.

Suggestions:
 * Explain in the article, something about what the accolades are, and what it takes to receive them. So basically, flesh out some of the citations a bit more.  For example, there's a citation of the fact that he got 'black hat' status, and the ancient history of the title, but we'd like an amateur to be able to identify the meaning of what it took for this gentleman to receive this in modern times, and why it is relevant today, from reading the article.  Within neutral bounds, and whatnot.
 * Convert the "further reading" section into some additional body contents. If possible, explain why these books are significant, and using them as citations.  "Further reading" is discouraged, if possible, because it exists completely outside of the encyclopedia.  Especially in the case of printed media.
 * As for the part that says "The award's selection panel's guidelines describe the title of Black Hat Chef[1] as the following:", those guidelines are not yet published to the public. At the moment, they're in the form of a couple of documents, sent by email.  The panel said that they're planning to publish them.  Its contents are fairly obvious though, given the context of the extensive citations.

Smuckola (talk) 09:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)