Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eliza Acton/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:42, 14 March 2018.

Eliza Acton

 * Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Eliza Acton was an English poet and food writer extraordinaire. She produced one of Britain's finest cookbooks, which, even 170 years later, remains fresh and engaging. The book is also important for being the first to provide a list of ingredients for each recipe, and timings for each step of the process. She was also a passable poet, and provided a later, scholarly work on the history and culture of bread making in England. This has been through a bit of a re-write recently and a very useful PR; any further comments are most welcome. - SchroCat (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Image review

 * File:Eliza_Acton_1799-1859.png: where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No idea, I'm afraid! I'll have a hunt round to see if I can find it, but if not, I presume we're all good to have it as a non-free (only one, up in the infobox, etc)? Thanks Nikkimaria - SchroCat (talk) 08:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Gone for plan B after established that this isn't Acton (the second time we've added an image and then found it wasn't the lady herself!) – SchroCat (talk) 12:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Source review by Lingzhi

 * Humble, Nicola (2006). Sort error, expected: Hughes, Kathryn (2006-);
 * Done. - SchroCat (talk) 08:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * David, Elizabeth (1968). CS1 maint: Extra text: editors list; Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter? Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs orig-year; Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;
 * Ray, Elizabeth (1968). "Preface". CS1 maint: Extra text: editors list; Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter? Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs orig-year; Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand some of these two, but what I have done is add the page numbers for both and put in the right ISBN (ISBNs were introduced in 1966, so this 1968 book wasn't too early). This is the original year of publication, so doesn't need the extra parameter, and an OCLC isn't needed because of the ISBN. If you could explain what the CS1 bit is,about, I'll see if I can sort that too. Many thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 08:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * No, ISBNs introduced in 1970, unless Wikipedia is wrong. Your isbn is from a 1974 reprint of "Ray (1968) The best of Eliza Acton". Which source did you use, 1968 edited version or 1974 reprint? OCLC of 1968 is 123755053, but pagenums may be different, so pls verify. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the infobox has brilliantly given an incorrect date, as the history section makes clear; some books in the late '60s carried the numbers. I'll check my copy later to see which one it is. - SchroCat (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley
I think "a bit of a rewrite" is unduly modest; 504 words to 3,859 is rather more than that! I was a peer reviewer, and had my few, minor, queries dealt with then. One additional point that I must have missed (sorry!): in the Legacy section, last para, first and second sentences: "...indebted to Acton and her work. In her work...". Two points here: first there is a bit of a jingle in the repetition, and secondly the first "her" is Acton and the second "her" is David, and at first reading this is not clear till one gets well into the second sentence. I think you need to bring Mrs D in at the start of her sentence, like this or something similar: "Elizabeth David wrote in 1977 that The English Bread Book was a major influence on and source for her own English Bread and Yeast Cookery." That's all I can find. This is the third time I've read the article, and it has been a pleasure once more. Very happy to support.  Tim riley  talk    16:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Tim, I'm much obliged for your comments at PR and here. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Support from Wehwalt
I also was a peer reviewer. Seems fine for FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, Wehwalt, for your comments here and at PR, they are always extremely useful. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Support from Gerda
Thank you for another interesting woman! I missed the peer review, and found only so minor points (which you may consider or not) that I can support right away.

Lead


 * "The first recipe for spaghetti" would be surprising, - first in England? Or first mentioning of the word in English*
 * "admired by and influential with" sounds (to me) like a phrase that is correct but perhaps not the most elegant way to put it.
 * Quite right; both done - SchroCat (talk) 08:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Early life


 * I'd move the image down a little, more to the context.
 * I work on a relatively wide screen, and if it moves down, it forces the next image down, which affects the triple image down. I know we can't mitigate for all screen sizes in the world of tablets and mobiles, but this is the way that affects least people. - SchroCat (talk) 08:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Cookery writer
 * St John-at-Hampstead: is she buried in the church, or on the church graveyard?
 * It's not clear from the sources, but as we say "at" the church, rather than "in" the church, we cover both possibilities. - SchroCat (talk) 08:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Cookery
 * Imagine someone who goes from the TOC directly to there: "O'Brien", the first word. Who is that? Perhaps one line of summary before?
 * We outline who is is in the section just above (about poetry), so we should be OK as it is. - SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I hear you, only I thought - and said so - of a reader who comes via the TOC. Our readers have different interests, and not all read an article sequentially. Example: in a longer article about a composition, I repeat links in the Music section, because some readers may read there only, without background and history. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Legacy
 * I suggest you move the last line (1974) in chronology, to end on (2000) Seafood Lovers' Guide.
 * Yep, done. - SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I love the flavour of the article, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you Gerda, I'm much obliged. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your replies, understood, fine with me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Support from Chetsford
What a fascinating article. The only possible complaint I have is in this sentence: In 1861 Isabella's husband, Samuel, published Mrs Beeton's Book of Household Management which also contain several of Acton's recipes. I'm not sure if "contain" should in fact be "contains" or "contained"? Maybe not. Chetsford (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Chetsford, I've tweaked the point you raised, so it should be ok now. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Ceoil

 * lead: Well structured, and written in an engaging prose' - I dont think this phrasing is worthy of the lead, though I have no issue with the substance. Should be toned down and broken into specifics - ie describe the structure, which was certainly innovative.
 * I've removed it: we outline the structure in more detail in the opening para, so it doesn't need repeating. - SchroCat (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * lead: 'the book was successful - Better might be that the book sold in the region of x copies, and mention how this was way above numbers for anything previous and similar. Ceoil (talk) 11:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've removed this too. It would mean going into too much detail if we outline numbers sold, etc, and the following line says it was reprinted soon afterwards, which sums up the situation enough. Many thanks Ceoil - much appreciated, as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Support from Jim
Only one thing struck me in this excellent piece Modern Cookery was not reprinted in full until 1994, and The English Bread Book was reprinted in 1990. since the later item is listed first perhaps link with although instead of and Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  15:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Jimfbleak - much appreciated; I've tweaked as you've suggested. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments from JM
A great topic; very much worthy of the star.
 * You use several different names for the The English Bread-Book (I use that title because it's apparently on the title page!) and it may be worth taking a quick look at the article on that book, if you find a few minutes; at the very least, the title and the (apparently not a) picture of Acton may need changing. (for shouldn't be capitalised, I think?)
 * I've clarified in the footnote. Although Bread-Book was hyphenated in the original, it wasn't in later editions, so I've used the hyphen almost all the way through as we tend to be talking about the first edition.
 * "Hardy considers the story as apocryphal" Is the as really needed?
 * Is "invalids" the best term? I worry that it's a little archaic. I may be wrong.
 * "referred in her preface that she was" Are you sure that works? I would have thought that she wrote in her preface that x, or referred in her preface to the fact that x?
 * "bread making" Dash? For that matter, what about "well received" in the lead? And "left over"? Maybe I'm wrong.
 * Bread-making and left-over now hyphenated. I'm not sure about well received. I think "the book was well received" is OK, but it would be a "well-received book". I think I have that right, but if a grammar bod wants to correct me for the nth time in my life, I'll do my best to remember it this time. - SchroCat (talk) 08:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "The food writer Alan Davidson considers that Modern Cookery "is" Surely he considers it to be, or says that it is?
 * The final paragraph of "Cookery": is your use of speech marks around recipe names consistent?
 * "The food historian Bee Wilson considers that many modern cookery writers are indebted to Acton and her work." How about "The food historian Bee Wilson considers many modern cookery writers to be indebted to Acton and her work."?
 * The second sentence in the final paragraph contains two semicolons; is that deliberate?

A really great read; I may not be back to look again (my time on Wikipedia is currently very limited), but I hope these comments will be useful. Finally: I made a few small edits; please double-check them. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, . All sorted now, except "well(-)received", about which I am not sure. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Support. I really don't know why I thought "well received" should have been "well-received", as it obviously shouldn't be. Great topic. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks Josh - very much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Support from Brianboulton
"The book was well received" does not require the hyphen; "a well-received book" would. I looked in on the peer review, made suggestions, saw the article in good order, even more so now. My one difficulty is reading an article about cooking and recipes as I sit in my snowbound house, unable to get to the shops while the larder slowly empties. And keeping my fingers crossed that the lekkie stays on. Brianboulton (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Brian, for your thoughts at PR and here. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 11:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.