Peer Review Feedback
There is a lot of really impressive research that went into this, and it is clearly written by someone who has put the work in and knows what she's talking about. Moving forward, I would suggest simplifying the topics and the language. While I do not think the language should be boiled down to the level of the Social Class article in its current form, the language and topics should be more accessible so that the average reader can glance at the paragraphs and get a good grasp on the topic. A good place to start would be with the titles. The titles are quite academic and, while accurate, not easy to digest at first pass. An alternative to the Semiotics of fine dining and “Aristocratic Borders”: Emperor’s New Clothes Theory section could even be boiled down to something as simple as Need Vs. Want. This section in particular is written quite academically and references Feldman, almost to the point where it seems more suited to a page on Feldman. These facts should have in-text citations and be reworded so that the section comes across less as an academic reference pondering Feldman's work/theories and more like common knowledge. Finally, Paradoxes of social class and world food history, contribution of the Gutenberg Printing Press to varied diversification of foods between classes. is a bit too strayed from the original topic at hand. While it deals with social class and diet, it is told too strictly through the lens of the Gutenberg printing press, which is more suited to a different page. You have all the knowledge you need, now just boil it down.
Aeb604 (talk)
