Wikipedia:Peer review/Elinor Fettiplace/archive1

Elinor Fettiplace


Another cookery book writer from history for another possible FAC run. I wrote this about four years ago and took it to GA, but I think it's mature enough to try for FA now. All comments with that in mind are most welcome. - SchroCat (talk) 14:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley
That's my lot. Another pleasing SchroCat article on an old cook and her book. Onwards to FAC, when pray ping me.  Tim riley  talk   10:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "the Vale of White Horse, in what was then Berkshire" – what is it in now? You might say either here or in the main text or even both.
 * "In common with most ladies of the Elizabethan era, Fettiplace wrote a manuscript book" – "most" is a pretty large claim. Do you think perhaps "many" might be safer, and also more in line with the main text?
 * "justice of the peace, Member of Parliament and the High Sheriff of Gloucestershire" – How I wish English was like German and capitalised all nouns as a matter of course, but as it is we have to deal with the question case by case and here it looks odd to me to capitalise the second and third of Henry Poole's job titles but not the first.
 * Done - but you know what will happen at some point in the future! - SchroCat (talk) 06:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "Francis and Dorothy" – really Francis rather than Frances? Just checking.
 * "Poole family was a large landowner ... the Poole family had heavily mortgaged much of their land ... The family were well-connected." – singular or plural? I think in this case all singular will be easiest.
 * "organised into twelve chapters by Hilary Spurling" – we don't need the sudden repetition of "Hilary" here, surely?
 * You asked me to comment here on the length of the section on the book, given that the book has its own article. The section looks all right to me, but if you are worried it is too long you could lose the sentence "The reference to a plague cure is unsurprising ..." And you could omit the closing block quote "Take five sponfulls of rose water and seaven sponfulls of sugar ..." I think it would be rather a pity to lose the latter from here, and I suggest you leave it where it is for now and see if anyone takes issue with it at FAC.
 * Excellent, thank you. - SchroCat (talk) 06:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "and which contained elements of a French and English style" – you don't, I think, want the "which" here.
 * I'm confused by how Clarissa D W's book is cited. In the References you give the Kindle section numbers, but in the Sources you link to the printed book via the Internet Archive. The latter, with page numbers, would be better I think, as everyone can access it.
 * Eat My Words has been withdrawn from the Internet Archive, and it would be as well to remove the link to its url.
 * Slightly oddly, although one copy was taken down, there is another copy still there, which I've now linked to. - SchroCat (talk) 06:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You give the usual padlock (url-access=registration) symbol for Clarissa's book, but not for the others you link to in the Internet Archive.
 * All sorted by CDW's page numbers, which I'll do now. Thanks, as always for your comments and thoughts. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Three supplementaries: (i) may I suggest a tweak to your new wording, to read "in the Vale of White Horse (then in Oxfordshire, now in Berkshire)"? A bit clearer, I think. (ii) I've just noticed that the name of the editor (Denise Dersin) is given on page 168 of What Life Was Like in the Realm of Elizabeth. (iii) would "contained elements of a French and English style" be clearer as "contained elements of French and English styles?  Tim riley  talk   08:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Me again. I've just noticed that the link to the British Library's receipt and recipe page isn't working – a casualty of the evil cyber-attach on the BL. Might be wise to change it to an OED reference: https://www.oed.com/dictionary/receipt_n?tab=meaning_and_use#125572606, or https://www.oed.com/dictionary/receipt_n?tab=etymology#125572606  Tim riley  talk   09:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well spotted, thank you. I’ve added an archive link, so it’s all good now. - SchroCat (talk) 09:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Tim riley Would you prefer to use my suggestion below in the article? Looking forward to knowing from you. Regards MSincccc (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

 Tim riley  talk  
 * Looks fine to me as is. 17:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would like to support the viewpoints in the article, such as identifying the harmfulness of spam and its negative impact on modern information. Therefore, avoiding spam is of great significance.- User:Jzhdylb

Comments from MSincccc
The article seems fine too me. I will return with further suggestions, if any, later. Looking forward to your response. Regards MSincccc (talk) 11:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This version uses "at" for precision and removes the unnecessary comma after "Vale of White Horse," making it clearer and more formal.
 * The comma isn't unnecessary - see MOS:GEOCOMMA. - SchroCat (talk) 12:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This version is an improvement to the present one as it is clearer and places the historical note about the change in county in the most logical position.
 * The current version was a suggestion from just above by . I think his version is probably the superior. - SchroCat (talk) 12:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @SchroCat I was unable to retrieve a direct link to the exact source within the Oxford or Cambridge dictionaries. However, based on common usage in British English, the version suggested by me is more suitable for a potential FA-Class Wikipedia article as it
 * avoids unnecessary commas, which enhances readability and maintains a formal tone appropriate for high-quality encyclopedi Do you have anything to say with regard to it? I have used multiple writing applications as well as to verify my stance. Regards.MSincccc (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Tim Riley did not exactly mention the phrase that would be best for the article. I am doing so. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * He did 'exactly mention the phrase'. It's a better version than your suggestion and I think would be better to keep rather than replace. - SchroCat (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @SchroCat Why exactly do you believe his suggestion to be a better one? Is it because he's more experienced (and decades older than me) or because he has previously collaborated with you on other articles? Looking forward to your response. Regards MSincccc (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I'm going to go further into this, except to say thank you for your suggestion, but I think I'll keep the current version because it's better. That's not because of who suggested it, it's based entirely on the text. - SchroCat (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not better, I can assure you. Moreover, you could check it for yourself, say using a chatbot. The comparison will tell you that my version is more preferable for an FA-class Wikipedia article in British English. Regards MSincccc (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's worth continuing this, particularly if you think a chatbot is the way to produce quality content. - SchroCat (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @SchroCat I do not think that chatbot is the way to produce quality content though books and other reliable sources are. If you want to continue with the version suggested by Tim riley-fine. Would you like any further suggestions here or shall I make them known at the article's FAC (when you nominate it)? Looking forward to your response and anticipating our future collaborations. Regards MSincccc (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 12:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)