Talk:A History of English Food/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 23:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks, I'll certainly extend the lead. The plot summary has to be plain and factual but there's scope for a bit more detail. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Review

Lead

• I realize that editors have their own unique style and approach to writing articles. However, this lead section violated my expectations in several ways: it doesn't tell me outright that it is a book, it doesn't tell me the year it was published or the name of the publisher, and the synopsis in the lead is exceptionally short. Reception doesn't detail the specific reasons why critics liked or disliked it. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article, the lead should be detailed, should tell the reader if it is non-fiction, where it was published, and provide a general synopsis. Viriditas (talk) 23:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  Repeated the publication details in the lead, and said a bit more on content and critics. Reception absolutely says what the different critics liked or disliked, complete with direct quotations so they speak in their own voices. The amusing thing, of course, is that the left- and right-wing critics reacted in their own ways to the same features of the book.

  It looks better, thanks. I'll have more to say in a bit. Viriditas (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

• Looking closely at the book itself, I think there's an enormous opportunity to provide a fuller, more detailed synopsis in several regards, particularly in reference to the historical approach which takes place over a huge range encompassing a millennium, beginning with medieval cuisine in the 1150s to modern cuisine from the 1970s to the 2000s, although the historical recipes in the appendix are only dated from the medieval era to the 19th century, so perhaps the range is somewhat restricted when it comes to the recipes. Viriditas (talk) 23:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  Well, we should not make comments on "the historical approach" or offer any other sort of opinion in the synopsis. I'll have a think about extending it and giving additional examples.

  I think you're on the right path. As for the synopsis or summary, the best way forward is to create paragraphs. I see that you've avoided this style in older articles like Food in England which was reviewed in 2016. My guess, is that in the last eight years, the convention to use summary style paragraphs has prevailed. Witness your work on Elinor Fettiplace's Receipt Book in 2020, for example. Further, I think my hypothesis is supported by the age of the articles. You created Food in England in April 2015 and this article in February 2016. So as you circle back to bring your older articles to GA, I think it's safe to say that styles and layout have changed in the intervening years. I should clarify a bit: I'm not saying your article has to be written a certain way or appear in a certain style, such as a cookie-cutter approach (which is quite popular with some editors); but given this article and the above two, I think it would help to try to find a happy medium between the three that shows a common style or approach. Or do you think all three cookbooks should have radical styles and layouts? I don't think there's a correct answer to the question, but I do know as the reader I prefer summary style with paragraphs instead of table of contents style columns (for example, A New System of Domestic Cookery) or bulleted headers in the synopsis like we find here. Just my opinion... Viriditas (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

  Removed the bullet-points. The 'Approach' now describes what is common to all the chapters, while 'Contents' summarizes in a short paragraph what each chapter says. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

  I think there's a bit of miscommunication here. I didn't mean literally "the bullet points", and I admit, your removal of them made me chuckle a bit. I meant the layout of the bullet points, which implies the entire structure, which I recommend replacing with summary style paragraphs. I can, of course, give you an example, but I tried to do just that in the comments above. Viriditas (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

  So, to be clear, instead of using chapter numbers and headings for each paragraph, think about writing a summary of the book without them. That is, after all, how we write the vast majority of sections about book summaries. Viriditas (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

  Done. I would not have gone to the considerable trouble to summarize each chapter if I had been intending to write a thematic overview.

• A History of English Food is a 2011 non-fiction book, a history of English cuisine arranged by period from the Middle Ages to the end of the twentieth century, written by the celebrity cook Clarissa Dickson Wright and published in London by Random House.

• In terms of readability, are you opposed to something a bit different, perhaps like this? "A History of English Food is a 2011 non-fiction book about the history of English cuisine arranged by period from the Middle Ages to the end of the twentieth century. Written by the celebrity cook Clarissa Dickson Wright, the book was published in London by Random House." Viriditas (talk) 23:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to edit it. First sentences are always the last thing to be got right. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, but I would like to have your blessing just in case. Viriditas (talk) 22:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Blessing conferred. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Book

Approach

• You have two single sentence paragraphs, "Each chapter is opened with a monochrome illustration from its period, with a detailed caption" and "There are 32 pages of colour plates illustrating famous cookery writers such as Robert May and stages of English cuisine such as 'The 1950s kitchen'". Consider grouping this content into a single paragraph or as part of another paragraph instead. Viriditas (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Contents

• In both the "Approach" and the "Contents" subsections, you repeat and duplicate content, respectively: "The book is divided into 15 chapters" and "The main body of the book consists of 15 chapters". I think you should choose one section and centralize this content there. Viriditas (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

  At the moment, "Approach" and "Contents" read as a single section rather than two different ones, but I suspect that's not what you intended. Viriditas (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Reception

• Just an observation, but after reading through the sources for this section I have to say, I have never in my entire life witnessed such harsh criticism against a food writer. One might think Clarissa Dickson Wright should be brought before an International Criminal Tribunal for her alleged crimes against humanity. This is surprising to me as an American. Is this a typical example of literary criticism in the UK? Viriditas (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

• Is this because discussions of "English food" are a controversial subject? I'm just trying to wrap my mind around this. In regional California cuisine, there is a tradition of heated, controversial food articles about Mexican food variations, often engaging in mock fighting between different parts of the state, such as NoCal vs. SoCal, etc. It is never supposed to be taken seriously, and is intended to be in good fun, but I wonder if someone from outside of California might take it seriously by accident. Is that what is happening here? Am I taking this criticism of Dickson Wright too seriously? Viriditas (talk) 23:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

  Curiously, to Beitish eyes the reviews do not mainly come across as harsh. The magic ingredient however is social class, combined with a view of history and a political allegiance. DW is 'posh', upper class. She likes the hunting, shooting, fishing of the old aristocracy, whose wealth was in land; they have grand houses in the countryside, with enormous ancient kitchens: they eat what they shoot or fish, so a lot of roast meat and game. This is isomorphic with old Conservative politics, royalism, a degree of national pride. In short, it is Establishment. Right-wing papers think this splendid; left-wing papers hate it. I am not sure how much of this can be said in the article: to a Brit, society has been divided along these lines since 1066, the Norman Conquest, so it's pure sky-is-blue common knowledge. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

  That's fine, but I can't say I've ever seen this kind of thing crop up before in an article about a cookbook. Viriditas (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

  Noted. If you want me to add anything, just say so. I think the article is complete, really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. Latest changes look good. My only quibble is that most people put the "editions" at the end or in the references section, but it’s not something that concerns me. Will pass now. Consider what I said about the lead up above, but I leave it in your most capable hands. Viriditas (talk) 08:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Various aspects and elements of Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article and WP:LEAD are missing. I will discuss specifics in the above section.

   Prose looks good, and I particularly enjoyed the way the reception section was written. Well done.

   I'm not a fan of the layout, as my comments above show. Adding a question mark for the moment more for discussion purposes than anything else.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Added citations for quotes.

   Updated short description and infobox

   Earwig returns unusual results that I'm still trying to work through.[1] It looks like a false positive attributable to citogenesis.

   Spot-checks in progress.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Recent edits have fixed these concerns.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No issues found, but the severity of the criticism was surprising to me. Extended comments up above in "Reception" part of the review.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Stable

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Two current images are fine, but there's a lost opportunity to add additional images of quintessential dishes

   Nominator has recently added additional images in response to my comments. That is greatly appreciated.

7. Overall: Putting on hold as major issue concerns layout (and by extension readability); working through the rest of minor issues while on hold. Update: latest changes look great. I left comments about potential changes to the lead and moving the editions section farther down to the bottom, but it has no bearing on the final review. Passing now. Good work. Viriditas (talk) 08:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

   Pass/Fail:

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.