Talk:The Accomplisht Cook/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: VickKiang (talk · contribs) 07:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I will be conducting the GA Review for The Accomplisht Cook--VickKiang (talk) 08:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The article appears fairly interesting has some well-written sections, but the overall quality is mixed. Below are some suggestions for improvement:
 * Thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

First Impressions
1. Context section- this section is excessively short and superficial, containing merely one sentence. My suggestion would be to either omit and combine this section or to enhance information on Robert May. In particular, the opening 'Following the English Civil War' would have benefitted from more information on its relationship with the publication of this book and May (e.g., working for numerous Catholic and aristocratic families during the unrest).
 * Rewritten.

2. Imprecise wording, including the line 'free of plagiarism common' being included in the lead paragraph. I am tentative about whether this is an important aspect of this book, especially considering that it is not a critical aspect, mentioned only briefly in the 'reception' section.
 * It's a highly relevant datum. English cookery books up to the 19th century were often full of plagiarism, and its absence indicates an original and genuine cook who knew what he was doing. The lead is summarising cited text in the body of the article, in this case to Dickson Wright.

3. The section 'Editions' could potentially be improved by having several in-line references, or possibly enhancing the prose through a paragraph form instead.
 * It's hard to see how formatting the list as a paragraph will improve matters here; it's clearer to have the dates one below the other.
 * Citations: I have replaced the entire text with citations of the various editions. You can think of this list as a bibliography, a section of the References list, if you prefer.

4. Several sections are lacking in references, with the 'Contents' subsection under the section 'Book' having no references for the main paragraph, but one instead for the line 'The book also contains a memoir of the author'. This could be significantly improved.
 * The Contents of the book in any book article are directly from the book itself, i.e. there is nothing else to cite as the article identifies the book already. This is not a lack of citation; the cited source is the Gutenberg transcription of May's text.

5.  Questionable references, such as source 3 with no date and questionable format, and source 6 possibly being an unreliable source.
 * OK, I've replaced these.

Criteria
Those areas are significant and subsequently, render in the current form of the article to fail numerous aspects of the GA criteria:

Criteria 1a. The article is not well written due to the previously mentioned flaws in the writing, including severe problems with the context sections.

Note: The 'Context' section has been improved but numerous problems mentioned below are still significant; see suggestions. Result: Fail
 * Rewritten.

Criteria 1b. The manual of style's recommendations, especially on flowing prose recommended through paragraph format not adhered to due to the dot point structure in the 'Editions' section which is superficial and contains comparatively few references.

Note: However, after the edit this has been substantially and indisputably improved with a detailed format. Updated Result: Pass
 * This is certainly not grounds for a fail, as it's a guideline not a requirement. Prose is often preferred, but when one has an obvious list, as of a table of contents or a list of editions, list format makes more sense.

Please see the new comment for Criteria 1b- VickKiang (talk) 05:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Criteria 2a. The list of references is short for the article but well presented, clear and with the required features. Result: Pass
 * Noted.

Criteria 2b. In most cases, the sources are reputable, although one source (source 6- The Daily Mirror) is a news organisation that is typically not stellar inaccuracy. For instance, the Media Bias Fact Check ranks it as mixed verifiability and has revealed multiple failed fact checks. The third source also appears mixed in quality, with especially poor formatting and omits date of publication, two signs of potential unreliability. Hence some sources would require considerable further evaluation.

Edit: The tabloid source has been removed, but some references could not be opened, so further improvement is still required for reference 2. Result:  Fail'''
 * I'm not here to defend the Daily Mirror as such, but when the cook of a national newspaper chooses to write about a 17th century cookery book, I think we can take it that issues of 21st century gossip or political bias were far from the cook's mind. However as it happens I've removed that source as unnecessary.

Criteria 2c. The article does appear to potentially contain some original research. Sources are highly scanty throughout, with the 'Contents' subsection under the 'Book' section only containing a single reference at the end that does not verify any of the previous aforementioned topics (the reference is also mixed in quality). The editions section also does not contain any references or verification.

Note: Thanks for your reply. I believe that the cited source for the previous one is incorrect; nevertheless, the new references used is considerably better. Updated Result: Pass
 * I haven't stated any opinion of my own in the article, which is what the charge of original research would mean; everything is either from May's book (the primary source) or from the secondary sources cited. The whole of the 'Contents' is from the book; the cited source there is a facsimile text, which we can repeat many times in the section if you wish, but it is not necessary and would not add anything, except perhaps clarity for reviewers.

Please see the new update on criteria 2c- VickKiang (talk) 05:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Criteria 2d. A plagiarism check reveals that the article is not copied from other online sources. Result: Pass
 * Thanks.

Criteria 3a. The article addresses the main aspects of the topic despite some shortcomings in factual completeness and quality. Result: Pass
 * Noted.

Criteria 3b. The article is of pertinent size and summarises well. Result: Pass
 * Thanks.

Criteria 4. The article is positive on its account of Robert May, depicting him highly well in the reception category and depicting him as 'the celebrity cook of his time'. Hence, neutrality could be improved through some critical reviews of the book.

Note: The new improved 'Context' section is in my opinion considerably better. Hence, this renders a pass result. Updated Result: Pass
 * The phrase was attributed, but in any case, I've replaced the whole Context now.

Criteria 5. The article is highly stable, although only less than ten edits were recorded in 2021 and 2022. Result: Pass
 * Thanks.

Criteria 6a. Media tags are clear and passable. Result: Pass
 * Thanks.

Criteria 6b. The captions are compendious but generally succinct. Result: Pass
 * Thanks.

Summary
Currently, the article remains a long way from achieving GA, as significant improvements are required. - VickKiang (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC).


 * Happy to make changes, though I feel you're rather overstating the issues at the moment. I'll work on them now and reply under each item above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for my negative coverage- the article is decently well-written and has numerous interesting points that are commendable, I just believe that it still requires further improvements for a GA. Thanks for your understanding– VickKiang (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC).
 * : Thanks. I have replied to all your comments to date; in particular I have replaced the Context and Editions sections completely with fresh text and citations. I'll be happy to attend to any other queries you may have. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Further Suggestions
Thanks for your changes. There are still several queries that I will list below, the first of which is the lead section:

Lead section:

1. Time era issues: The article's lead section has some factual issues and redundant problems. The first sentence states that it is a book published in the Restoration Era (1660-1688), but the second sentence proceeds to describe that it is published during the Commonwealth of Oliver Cromwell (who lived between 1599 and 1658, with the Commonwealth of England considered between 1649 and 1660). This seems like a contradiction, and further investigation into this is needed.
 * Both statements are true, but we don't need to mention the Restoration era.

2. General focus of the lead statement: It mentions that the book is among the first notable ones to implement a system of sections, and also states that its utilisation of the ingredients of potato and turkey is especially notable. However, numerous parts of the 'Book' section, which is a significant section, is given few mentions in the lead section.
 * OK, ran through the section organisation.

Could you please address those problems first? I will subsequently post some issues for the 'Book' section (I also have some issues with the Contexts section and References)- VickKiang (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC).

Context

3. There is possible improvement needed for this line 'She sent him to study cooking for five years in France. He is known for his book The Accomplisht Cook, which dwarfed earlier cookery texts by its size and scope.' The sentence 'He is known for his book The Accomplisht Cook' appears slightly odd after the previous sentence since this is a subject of the article, and could there potentially be a rewording? Nevertheless, note that this is highly subjective and not a major area of concern.
 * Edited.

Book

4. Based on the context section, there appear to be a vast array of recipes. However, the recipes section only lists two, both of them being pies. In my opinion, an alternative recipe for another dish would have benefitted.
 * Good idea. We now have a fish pie, and a creamy pudding.

5. In the fifth line of the'Contents' subtopic: 'If this seems at least to be all about boiling meat', which could be simplified.
 * Edited.

6. In the 'Illustration' section the first two sentences have a monotonous structure ('The first edition contained a Frontispiece of the author. The fifth edition of 1685 contained in addition...') appears to be repetitive and subsequently lower in engagement. Try to have alternate sentence structures if possible.
 * Reworded.

References

7. I was unable to open the second source, with the result of 'Oops! We ran into some problems'. I am tentative whether this is merely an issue on my computer, nevertheless could you please check and verify it?
 * Archive URL added.

I will be checking the 'Reception' section next- VickKiang (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * : all done to date. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Still further
Thanks for your edits. The article is now significantly enhanced in my opinion. Below are some of my further notes for possible improvement:

1. The edited lead section now mentions that 'Eight of the sections are devoted to fish'. This is subsequently made clear by the 'Contents' section (i.e., from XIII to XX), but since the main article does not cover much more information on this than the lead, try to elaborate this information potentially.
 * I've added a description in Contents.

2. The main image shows'Frontispiece of the 1671 edition', however, the publication details show 1660 one. Inserting a 1660 image alternatively, or having both and moving the 1671 image into the editions section, might be clearer in my opinion.
 * We don't have the 1660 image. At this distance in time, any of the editions would do; and it is obviously helpful to have both the book and May's portrait in the lead.

3. I am tentative of where the statistics of 'some 300 pages' is sourced from. Sources online list significantly more, with the fifth citation (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/22790/22790-h/cook1.html) having 461 pages, of which 300 pages for section I to XII and 161 pages from XII to the final; whereas an Amazon book copy (https://www.amazon.com/Accomplisht-Cook-1665-85-Robert-May/dp/1903018714) lists 544 pages. Could you please check on this?
 * Removed. The editions indeed were of widely varying lengths.

4. I am unsure of the punctuation for the following line:

"through urgent active verbs and imperative terms - leach that brawn, allay that pheasant, unbrace that mallard.
 * Added punctuation.

Please check this if possible,

5. In the first paragraph of the 'Reception' section as well as the lead paragraph, the lune 'Commonwealth of Oliver Cromwell' is used, however, this is far less utilised than the term 'Commonwealth of England'. Is the first line aforementioned from the source of Reference 3. Otherwise, could you potentially alter it?
 * Done.

6. In my opinion the wording 'communicating exciting facts' in the third paragraph of the 'Reception' section seems to be an alteration of the line from the Guardian ('communicating exciting knowledge'. However, without the quotation mark this line could appear to be incongruous to me, so is it possible if you quote it by changing it to the original or use a different phrase? Again, this is highly subjective and not an area of major concern.
 * The wording has been changed to avoid plagiarism, with little if any change in meaning.

Please address those issues first and once again many thanks- VickKiang (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * All done to date. As far as I can tell you are now happy with all earlier comments (in the sections before "Still further". If not, please say what still needs doing down here, as it's becoming confusing with comments appearing at differing times up there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

More suggestions
Thanks for your reply. I do not have concerns with the previous except for the following:

1. The revised section has elaborate information on the coverage of fish, however, consider the following line:

"The same section contains "To make several sorts of Puddings", ranging from blood pudding and haggis to sweet rice pudding flavoured with nutmeg, cloves, mace, currants, and dates. Sections XII to XX are devoted to the preparation of fish and associated dishes."

This does not seem to reasonably match the previous sentence. From my perspective, try to add more information about the sections in the chapter order, or add some other wording for this to not be incongruous compared to the previous ones.
 * I've separated it out into a paragraph with additional details and citation. Curiously, it actually was in the chapter order, as May puts puddings before fish.

2. Should the 1994 reprint be added to the 'Editions' section?
 * I don't think so. Reprints of out-of-copyright texts are two a penny with print-on-demand.

''3. I am unsure where the information that May was a cook from age 13 is sourced since numerous other sources cite instead that 'At the age of ten he was sent to Paris to continue learning his trade. He then spent seven years as an apprentice in London' (this source is from this link: https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/the-accomplisht-cook; this link also states identically: https://hillaryshort.wordpress.com/2010/03/29/robert-mays-the-accomplisht-cook-cowdray-palaces-tudor-kitchen-and-lumber-pie/). Furthermore, I believe that the line 'Robert May was from the age of about 13 a cook' would be better written as 'Robert May was from the age of 13 a cook', or 'Robert May was from the age of 10 a cook' if the aforementioned sources are correct instead, however, my second suggestion for this is subjective.
 * I've said "from a young age", and cited the BL source for the apprenticeship.

4. Some of the other sentence structures appears monotonous despite precedent improvements being significantly better, such as:

'''The first edition contained a Frontispiece of the author. The fifth edition of 1685 had in addition...'''

The sentence starts to appear to be especially similar.

''Another is the following: 'The recipes are presented entirely as instructions, without lists of ingredients. The instructions are not necessarily in order...' ''

All of those have resembling starts with 'The' and then similar nouns. Try to alter those if possible- VickKiang (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Copy-edited both. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

5. From my perspective, suggesting "from a young age" might seem ambiguous; since most of the sources cite the embankment of his apprenticeship at ten it would be congruous to use this instead in my opinion, although this is also subjective.
 * Fixed.

6. The lead section seems rather repetitive with a questionable format. After summarising sections of the book, it subsequently discusses its noteworthiness in the publication period before noting its utilisation of two prominent materials. Nevertheless, from my perspective try to summarise the article compendiously by improving the structure, or alternating it into one single paragraph with the identical information in a better structure.
 * The lead correctly 1) introduces the book; 2) describes its structure; 3) says what is remarkable about it.

7. The lead section reveals some inconsistencies with the content subsection. Some information presented in the lead, including the line 'providing numerous recipes for boiling, roasting, and frying meat, and others for salads, puddings, sauces, and baking' is omitted in the context section. In my opinion, it would be equivocal if those aspects are not covered in the 'Context' sunsection'. Hence, try to add information about it if possible- VickKiang (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Look again: all those things are listed in the contents section already, e.g. I: Boiling, IV: Roasting, VI: Frying. I believe we are complete here now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding my concern, there is info in the context section in dot point form, but should there be considerably more detailed information in paragraph format instead of only being listed there- VickKiang (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no prohibition on listing contents, especially when they are very extensive; nor is there any requirement or value in repeating what is already listed. The 'Contents' section already describes the book's structure, such as it is, and says clearly that the book is in fact rather unstructured: in short, it's basically a long list of recipes with little organisation. In such a case, there isn't a great deal to add about its organisation, and we certainly can't repeat large amounts of its content. I've added a paragraph in 'Contents' on meat and (hunted) game to balance out the coverage of puddings and fish; I hope you find this satisfactory.

8. Could you check if section XII is regarding fish? From my perspective, it is concerning cream only, and sections XIII to XX are on fish.
 * Typo fixed.

9. For this line: 'On the other hand, Rule observes, May was still completely Mediaeval in liking live birds bursting from a fake "pye", complete with mock battle held on the table' could you possible alternate the structure for enhanced clarity?
 * Reworded, but see next reply.

10. Try alternating the sentence structures of this line:

'He then served a seven-year apprenticeship in London. He became known for his book The Accomplisht Cook, which dwarfed earlier cookery texts by its size and scope.' - VickKiang (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Reworded, but this sort of thing really does not concern the GA criteria. The material is correct and clearly expressed, and that should be sufficient. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Final Suggestions
Thanks for your replies and apologies for my minor quibbles. I have several other minor concerns, after those are subsequently responded I will pass this as a GA:

1. In 'and the first to group recipes logically, into 24 sections' remove the comma.

2. Change the line:

"there follow four recipes for (bone-)marrow pies to accompany the Olio" to:

"four recipes are followed for (bone-)marrow pies to accompany the Olio"
 * Reworded.

3. Add commas before and after 'therefore' in the line:

" She considers the book therefore to have a "freshness" and to be revealing of well-to-do life in 17th century England"
 * Rearranged.

4. Remove "simply" in the line and also change the word 'say' if possible:

or he may simply say "and put into beaten Butter", leaving the cook to judge the quantity required.
 * Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

After those changes, in my opinion, the article is desirable for a GA- VickKiang (talk) 10:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your changes. I had a few extremely minor grammatical issues that I fixed myself. Below is a recap of the article's satisfaction for the GA criteria:

1a. The prose is unspectacular but decently clear, concise, understandable, readable and with satisfactory grammar/spelling. Result: Pass

1b. The article complies with the fundamental principles of the Manual of Style. Result: Pass

2a. A list of references is included in a pertinent format. Result: Pass

2b. All inline citations are sourced from relevant and moderately reliable sources. Result: Pass

2c. No original research is evident, with each section of the article having substantial and reasonable amounts of in-line citations. Result: Pass

2d. No copyright violations or plagiarism is discerned. Result: Pass

3a. Despite its short length, the article is compendious and relatively broad, but not highly comprehensive; still, it is sufficient for a GA article. Result: Pass

3b. The article uses a succinct summary style. Result: Pass

4. The article is decently neutral and does not contain large amounts of editorial bias. Result: Pass

5. The article is highly stable without edit wars or disputes. Result: Pass

6a. Medias have congruous copyright status. Result: Pass

6b. Despite the relative few images included, the article has sufficient amounts of illustrations and the tags are concise yet appropriate. Result: Pass

Overall a decent article. Congratulations on passing GA!- VickKiang (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)