Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Florence Petty/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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) 7 August 2023 [1].

Florence Petty edit

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Florence Petty was an interesting individual who spent her time trying to improve the lot of others through food, which is a noble aim in life, as far as I’m concerned! A great PR saw comments from HAL333, Mike Christie and Tim riley, which were all extremely useful. Any further comments are most welcome. - SchroCat (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Happy to support. What minor concerns I had were addressed in the peer review. ~ HAL333 19:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, User:HAL333, they were much appreciated. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley edit

There is going to be murder done if you persist – every damn' time! – in using the American "on So-and-So Street" rather than the English "in So-and-So Street" (in the caption of the second picture in this case). Otherwise, I'm entirely happy with the article. Curiously, although at PR I could see – though I didn't agree – why you were concerned that the article was on the short side, on rereading for FAC I had no such thought. It seems to me that you have said all that needs saying about this quietly splendid person. The article strikes me as meeting all the FA criteria: evidently comprehensive, balanced, a good read, admirably referenced and as well illustrated as I imagine is possible. Entirely happy to support. – Tim riley talk 20:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Tim. I like to kee you on your ties with the “on”: I shall try and make it a permanent fixture! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Mike Christie edit

I reviewed at PR with an eye to FAC and can't find anything more to kvetch about. Will plan on doing the source review shortly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

The only comment I have is that when I dug up the Times "News in brief" citation, it doesn't really have a title -- I can see that "News in brief" is the sort of thing it is, but it might be better to just say "Untitled". That's not enough to hold up a pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Mike, for your comments at PR and above, and your source review. I’ve swapped to the “Untitled” suggestion. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt edit

  • "In 1922 she presented at least a hundred lectures to the public.[1]" Why a hundred rather than one hundred?
  • Can anything be said of her personal life?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cheers Wehwalt. The 'hundred' sorted; there's absolutely nothing about her private life that I can see - even the ONDB has zero information, except that she lived with her sister. Thanks for your comments - they are much appreciated, as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:44, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Wehwalt (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Wehwalt. As always, your comments are much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Golden edit

Fascinating article about a fascinating person. I only have two minor concerns:

  • Both the pamphlet and book contain practical information on how to make and use a haybox. - This sentence seemed odd to me when I read it. What is the significance of a haybox, and why is it relevant to Petty?
    • It's there because she taught people how to make one - I've clarified the reasons why (the rest of the details are in the body). - SchroCat (talk) 11:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • although her students nicknamed her "The Pudding Lady" because in an attempt to get the women in the habit of cooking regularly using familiar and inexpensive ingredients: for the first three months of her demonstrations they made suet puddings—plain, sweet and meat—until the women began to show pride in their ability to cook. - I had a hard time understanding this sentence, probably because of the colon and the lack of commas. I would add a comma after "because" and replace the colon with a comma. — Golden call me maybe? 10:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point: now reworked per your suggestion. - SchroCat (talk) 11:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Golden: that's much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! I'm happy to support. — Golden call me maybe? 11:44, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Golden - that's very good of you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from UC edit

Commenting as requested. Certainly the sort of article we could do with more of, and evidently impeccably researched. My main overall observation is the length of the article: I appreciate that relatively little has been written on Petty herself, but I think we could fill out those lacunae with some more general context about the world she lived in and how her work fitted into a broader social and historical picture. Some more specific suggestions below, along with the usual nit-picks. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd put a bit into the lead, if we can, about Petty's status, reception etc: bluntly, tell the reader why they should be interested in her. More generally, I think the lead is a little parsimonious about what from the article it includes: there's definitely room to expand a little to make sure that the key information is covered.
I really like the new lead - nice work. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • north London or North London? My very subjective opinion from experience and a quick Google is that the second is marginally more common, and avoids the observation that Somers Town is, by any reasonable geometrical measure (which I appreciate Londoners don't go in for), more or less in the centre of London. Otherwise, perhaps worth a link to clarify that 'north London' means more than just 'the northern bit of London'?
  • Suggest a brief gloss or explanation as to what a haybox is, and perhaps some indication of why we're singling out this detail: it would seem odd to say "both the pamphlet and the cookbook include a recipe for cheese on toast", but presumably there's something about hayboxes that makes them significant?
  • For the lead? That seems to be a little too detailed, but I'll look at it when I beef up the lead a bit (per your first comment). - SchroCat (talk) 21:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • economical ingredients and cooking methods: might be worth a slight rephrase to be clear that both the ingredients and the methods were economical.
  • On Vector 2022, I see a small MOS:SANDWICH between the first two images.
  • I'm not overly concerned by this - it's only by a small amount, and that depends on the width of a reader's screen. - SchroCat (talk) 14:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a huge issue, though moving the Mothers' and Babies' down would make for nicer balance anyway. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OK - moved down one paragraph. - SchroCat (talk) 13:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • a clerk at a timber merchant: if using at, I'd say at a timber merchant's: the merchant is the person, not the company. Do we know anything about Jane Norris?
  • Done the possessive; nothing is known about Norris, as far as I've been able to find (information on any aspect of Petty's life is scant, unfortunately). - SchroCat (talk) 14:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • commonly known as the Mothers' and Babies' Welcome: consider italicising per MOS:WORDSASWORDS. Not sure about this, but I think the The was part of the common name (people called it The Mothers'... and so should be capitalised here.
  • in the deprived area of Somers Town, north west London: it was socially deprived in the lead, which I think is better; if nothing else, it's odd to be more specific in the lead than the body. Could we have some contextual information as to how deprived it was: in particular, do we know anything about childhood malnutrition there, or in poorer areas of Britain more generally at the time? There's a comment in a moment about infant mortality: again, can we add any context to that, perhaps drawing on works outside Petty's strict biography? In terms of background: was she the first person to do something like this? There's definitely a broader 'trend' for this kind of missionary-like social work between the late Victorian period and the early C20th that I think could be explored a little.
  • Added a little context on the area - more on the rest later. - SchroCat (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • And a bit on her approach and how it fitted in with a wider trend. - SchroCat (talk) 12:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • She described herself as a "Lecturer and Demonstrator in Health Foods": assuming this was indeed a description, rather than a formal job title, it should be lc per MOS:PEOPLETITLES.
  • A couple of sources say that was how "she defined herself"; one says "she was employed as", so I've split the difference. I think the capitals fit best here, rather than lower case. - SchroCat (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not going to kick up a major fuss here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • She described herself as a "Lecturer and Demonstrator in Health Foods", although her students nicknamed her "The Pudding Lady" because, in an attempt to get the women in the habit of cooking regularly using familiar and inexpensive ingredients, for the first three months of her demonstrations they made suet puddings—plain, sweet and meat—until the women began to show pride in their ability to cook: quite a beefy sentence. At the moment, the 'main' clause functionally is not the main clause grammatically: suggest flipping the "although" and writing "Although she described herself as a "Lecturer and Demonstrator in Health Foods", her students..." to put the weight on the substantial bit.
  • Blake Perkins, Petty's biographer in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, observes that her case notes for the women she was instructing are "matter-of-fact but also sympathetic rather than clinical: observes, to me, implies a statement of indisputable fact, which doesn't sit well with this inherently subjective judgement. What are these case notes, exactly? I'm not clear whether this is a sort of course report or if Petty was more some kind of social worker assigned to these women: for whose consumption was she writing?
  • I've changed to "considers" to give a little more leeway, and to just "notes". It's not clear from the source who she was writing for, or in what context. - SchroCat (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • was riven with poverty: not sure the WP:TONE is right here; can we show rather than tell ("was one of the most deprived areas in London")? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1910 the St Pancras School for Mothers published an account of its work in The Pudding Lady: A New Departure in Social Work: it took me a moment to remember that this was the Mothers' and Babies' Welcome: I'd suggest being consistent about what we call it in the article. I'd also give a little more context as to what The Pudding Lady was: is it a mass-marker book, a pamphlet for a specific audience, a radio broadcast... We say that it's an account of its work (that is, of the SPSfM): is that accurate, or is it really an account of her work?
  • Tweaked and added some background here. - SchroCat (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
published an account of Petty's work. .. examining her work and the impact she had: slightly tautological now. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re-tweaked: how does that look? - SchroCat (talk) 13:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • the secretary of the National Food Reform Association (NFRA): can we introduce what this was, and possibly link it?
  • Now introduced, but there doesn't seem to be anything to link to. I'm not sure about a redlink - I'll do some digging to see if there is anything notable about them. - SchroCat (talk) 15:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think note 14 should come before the dash.
  • a series of "demonstration-lectures": quote marks sit oddly here. Presumably, they're there because someone called them this: could we say who?
  • We can, and now do (The Times, if you're interested). - SchroCat (talk) 15:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Briefly introduce Lady Meyer (it sounds like there's a philanthropic edge here as well?)
  • on wartime cookery: can we contextualise a little and explain what made wartime cooking different from regular cooking?
  • I've added something on the rises in food prices/cost of living: does that work? - SchroCat (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there something to be said about the specific types of food that were hit? From memory, for example, Danish bacon was a particular problem, but potatoes were encouraged because they were widely grown domestically (certainly during the next war, they had the slogan "remember spuds don't come in ships!"). We mention later that "some foods" were rationed; it might be helpful to be a little more specific on which ones were hit the hardest. From the existence of the thesis cited in the bibliography, there might be more to say to put Petty into the context of the broader food-economy movement here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • goods such as mild and potatoes: should that be milk?
  • The Board of Trade estimated the cost of living for the working class increased to 45 per cent between 1914 and 1916: increased by, surely?
  • It's a little odd to mix % and per cent in close proximity.
  • I think I'm slightly missing something on hayboxes: yes, the haybox itself doesn't use any fire, but you do have to heat the food up with something first.
  • OK - I've added a bit of outline on how it works, but the linked article should do most of the heavy lifting here. - SchroCat (talk) 21:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I think she (and many others) slightly mis-sold it as "fireless", but you do a good job of explaining the point. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • which could also be used for doing the laundry, cleaning tins and saucepans, and keeping butter cool in hot weather: I sort of get the last one, but how do you use a haybox to clean your saucepans?
  • Added a footnote with the details on this. - SchroCat (talk) 20:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the time The Pudding Lady's Recipe Book was published, Petty had become a qualified sanitary inspector: I assume this was 1917, but we only actually said that it was written in that year: it's entirely possible that there was a gap.
  • Unfortunately the only information we have is as we describe it here: there are no dates on when she was qualified. - SchroCat (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the time The Pudding Lady's Recipe Book was published in 1920 We've talked about editions in 1917 and 1918, so should this be republished? As phrased, this sounds like it should be the first publication of the book. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - my typo there: it should have been 1917. - SchroCat (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the end of the war Petty continued lecturing on and writing about cookery: suggest after the war, as the first think we mention is three years after the Armistice.
  • in 1923 she wrote the paper "The Cook as Empire Builder" for the Journal of the Royal Sanitary Institute: quite the title: what did she say about cooks as empire builders? How did it go down? Was it unusual for a working-class woman to be publishing in what seems to be quite a respectable learned journal?
  • She says virtually nothing about empire building - it was an odd title to choose! The only reference to it is based on a something done in Essex. Petty writes: "The Chairman of one of the Essex Medical Inspection Sub-Committees wrote, "Such work as this is done for the Empire.""
    There's no information on how the article went down (no third party references to it, no commentary in subsequent issues, etc). Looking back over some previous issues, the journal had several previous female writers (I've found them back to 1911 issues). - SchroCat (talk) 10:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. I'm conscious that this is the era of the WSPU and so on: can anything be said about women's participation in the academic press more generally? Again, this would likely be from a source other than a direct biography of Petty. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's getting a bit too far from the heart of things. As I said, the journal had a number of women contributors dating back to at least 1910, which was over a decade before Petty. - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • She spoke on the "Household Talk" series of programmes: fairly obvious from the title, but suggest a little context as to e.g. format, subject matter, listenership... As with the paper above: how big a deal was this?
  • I've added a little colour here to give some context. - SchroCat (talk) 08:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Making the most of a Minimum Wage: should be Making the Most of a Minimum Wage, I think.
  • It reads a little oddly to mix (OK, self-explanatory) titles with simple descriptions, and it isn't always grammatical ("a programme on the topic of dinners for a Week on a minimum wage"). Suggest She presented talks titled "Making the Most of a Minimum Wage" and "Dinners for a Week on a Minimum Wage", as well as others on the subjects of...)
  • Agreed: reworked along those lines. - SchroCat (talk) 19:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, this is a short article. That's not a major problem in itself, but means that for comprehensiveness we should make sure that every opportunity to give detail and - importantly - context is taken.
  • She lived in Montrose until her early 30s when she moved to Swanley, Kent: any idea of why, or what she did there?
  • No idea why, but added that she was involved in horticulture. - SchroCat (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Petty wrote on cookery, with works aimed at those also involved in social work, and with a cookery book: I'm not sure that the withs here are quite grammatical. Suggest "producing works... work, and a cookery book", "authoring works..." or similar.
  • Tweaked this. How does it look now? - SchroCat (talk) 08:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the comma before the and is grammatical, as she produced that book too. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re-tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very optional, but as we now have X... and Y... and Z..., consider publishing works aimed at those also involved in social work, including a cookery book (yes, that brings the comma back from the dead...) UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done - SchroCat (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a lot of primary sources in the bibliography: it might be worth separating these out (or, if you prefer, separating out secondary sources as "Biographies of Petty" or similar. Mindful of WP:PRIMARY, I think it's good to do as much as we can not to dress up the mutton of primary sources as secondary-source lamb.
    • Yep. I've split into the usual categories I've used previously. - SchroCat (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's still not totally clear which sources are being treated as primary and which as secondary. Bibliographical formatting is very much a matter of nominator's preference, but it does read a little oddly to lump Roland 2008 and Davin 1978, for example, into a section of basically-primary journal articles. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'd rather leave them as they are now, separated into the normal categories. - SchroCat (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When in Rome... UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • By writing an article on someone, we're taking as read that they're notable in the sense that they've had some kind of impact (if nothing else, in other people's writing) beyond the simple facts of their life. I'd like to see some kind of "Legacy" section here: were her contributions to food education recognised (or not) in her lifetime or beyond? Was she criticised for her public prominence? Did her work lay the groundwork for any future initiatives, programmes or people? Has anyone written about how she didn't get the recognition she deserved?
  • Nope - unfortunately! The closest thing to it is at the end of the DNB article, which says "No newspaper of record appears to have published her obituary. Most of her recipes use a handful of inexpensive items and rely on simple procedure. In this they prefigure Second World War efforts by the Ministry of Food to convince the populace that substitution of cheaper for familiar ingredients was worthy and even enjoyable." The 'pre-figuring' is a long way from any form of legacy, so I'm not sure we can make the connection too much. No-one else really covered her life or legacy, unfortunately (or, at least, not as far as I have been able to find). - SchroCat (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had the Ministry of Food in mind when I wrote this: personally, I'd definitely bring it in to contextualise where she fits into the broader history of British food-based social relief. Even if she wasn't a direct (or acknowledged) inspiration for what came later, it's helpful for readers to be able to see that she and her work didn't exist in a vacuum, but are part of a longer story. I'd definitely put in the comment about her obit not appearing in any newspaper, as we can cite that to a secondary source: there's a definite "unsung hero" vibe to this article and it's good that we can make that more than an implication. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added something of her legacy at the end. There isn't anything I could find that made a more concrete connection between her work (or that of the The Mothers' and Babies' Welcome) with the Second World War Ministry of Food approach. - SchroCat (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. Nice work: clearly took a lot of archival digging, and the article wears that research lightly indeed. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still have the Lead and haybox to do, plus a couple of other smaller points, I think. - SchroCat (talk) 18:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi UndercoverClassicist, I've covered all the above comments as they currently stand. Hopefully they are all in line with your comments (or, at least, explained why I haven't done something), but I look forward to any additional comments or further thoughts you have. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great stuff. Afraid I've managed to find two or three more things, but we're certainly no more than a nose's length away here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I've covered all the new (and formerly unresolved) points, but please let me know if I've missed anything. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Happy to support. Another excellent piece of work. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz edit

Placeholder for now. JennyOz (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SchroCat, so sorry for delay! I have a few suggestions and questions...

All very much worth waiting for! - SchroCat (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • move good article template above EngvarB

lede

  • women to get them in the habit - get? to encourage?
    • I think I'll leave this how it is: it was more about getting them in the habit of cooking as much as anything. - SchroCat (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • allowing her to use their own limited equipment and utensils - to demonstrate how to use their own...
  • Because she taught the women how to make suet puddings - insert 'firstly' before "how"?
  • where heated food is place in an insulated box - tense placed
  • Her approach to teaching nutritious but cheap food - you can't teach food (or is that an Engvar thing?) - food cooking/cookery? teaching and promoting

life

  • Somers Town had high levels of poverty - why plural? does that mean pockets of ie in some areas a high level?
    • You've got me thinking about this. I take "a high level" as a singular (possibly consistent) level, but "high levels of" as multitude of levels that vary, but all are high, and it's the second one I'm after. (I may be wrong to make the difference along those lines, but that's my feeling on it). - SchroCat (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chalton Street - worth a link?
  • Among other activities, The Mothers' and Babies' Welcome provided cookery lessons for mothers, but realised that this was of limited success as many of the women lacked the basic equipment or utensils needed. - in their homes, at home
  • women's own homes, using only their own equipment and utensils - demonstrating how they could use their existing
  • Although she described herself as a "Lecturer and Demonstrator in Health Foods", her students nicknamed her "The Pudding Lady" because... - there is no "despite of" in this to warrant "although"? It's not like the students would have otherwise called her "Lecturer and Demonstrator in Health Foods". Petty described herself as a "Lecturer and Demonstrator in Health Foods. Her students nicknamed...
  • Westminster Health Society - is London Early Years Foundation "Founded in 1903 as the City of Westminster Health Society primarily"
  • the cost of food rose by 61 per cent the same time - at the same time or during?
  • Petty wrote at least one pamphlet for - link pamphlet? lest readers think leaflet?
  • cooking process is finished; because the cooking is finished by the latent heat - 2x cooking and 2x finished - maybe swap first to 'where the cooking continues'?
  • 300 recipes on a variety of basic foods - Engvar? recipes on? based on or 'using'
    • "On" sounds natural to me, but "using" is probably better anyway. - SchroCat (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The food chemist Katherine Bitting described it as - Petty's book
  • the book sold 20,000 copies.[38] The book was reprinted - It was reprinted?
  • Journal of the Royal Sanitary Institute - that institute became the Royal Society for Public Health. And the ibox on Perspectives in Public Health says (one of) its former name was "(1894-1955): Royal Sanitary Institute. Journal (United Kingdom) (0370-7334)"
    • I'm not a fan of wikilinking only part of a title (I think there may be something in the MOS about it, but I may be misremembering that), and Journal of the Royal Sanitary Institute is the journal's full name. - SchroCat (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • began presenting talks on the radio on 2LO station for the BBC - "on the radio on" maybe tweak? eg began presenting radio talks on the BBC's 2LO station
  • Also "began presenting talks on the ... and spoke on the "Household Talk" series" Did she give talks and separately spoke on the HT series? If not, remove "and" and change spoke to speaking?
    • Both (although Household Talk was also on 2LO) - tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • spoke on the "Household Talk" series v the Household Talks programmes - different formatting intentional? ie italics and plural
  • The historian Julie–Marie Strange - has authorlink but no link in prose intentional? And change dash in name to hyphen?
    • All done, except where noted otherwise. - SchroCat (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Works

  • Chapters "Cookery and Vitamines" [sic] and - The e was included in original spelling (per Vitamin#"Vitamine" to vitamin) and was just being dropped in 1920s. I know use of sic can be broader but most commonly it suggests an error. It depends on your purpose I s'pose. If your intention is to stop other editors from "correcting" it, you could swap to a hidden {{not a typo|original spelling}} template. If your intention is something else ... ignore me:)
    • Didn't know about that little template: that's a useful one! Now included and de-siced. - SchroCat (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Cats to consider

  • Category:British nutritionists
  • Category:Environmental health practitioners (because Sanitary inspector redirects to Environmental health officer which has "Some past titles for this role include inspector of nuisances, sanitarian, and sanitary inspector.")
  • Category:British women radio presenters or
  • Category:Scottish women radio presenters
  • Category:English health and wellness writers
    • I went for British, rather than English, but just a wider field
  • Category:Food activists
  • Category:British health activists
  • Category:British nutritionists

Misc

  • any way to break up article? I have nothing to suggest
    • It's a tricky one. There is no 'natural' break point - her career just rumbled on without a particular event marking a point we could use, so anything would have to be arbitrary. - SchroCat (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • no mention of any personal life, presume she did not marry nor have children. Do we usually say "nothing is known about..." or just stay silent?
    • I think we leave it blank on the off-chance someone else finds something. There's only the information that she lived with her sister which is what we've got there. - SchroCat (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • add pic of a haybox? None at Commons usable? The last one of a woman constructing her own is from First World War period though German (by Marie Goslich)
    • I found one from 1913 from a US writer which I've added. - SchroCat (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had a quick look in Trove (a large number of contributions to Aust newspapers in that time was from British correspondents).
    One piece on age staging young children's recipes but nothing usable here.
    Another piece, again not usable, but it might explain angry warring WP editors ...indigestion! "good cooking and a knowledge of dietetics made for greater happiness in the world, and would probably lead to peace knowing as one did, the close connection between indigestion and bad temper, individual and national."
    I loved reading that last article - it made me chuckle! - SchroCat (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hope all that is comprehensible! I enjoyed reading about Floss. Regards, JennyOz (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks JennyOz. Excellent comments as always and all very much to the point. Hopefully I have done justice to them, but please let me know if I've erred or if I've missed anything. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All great thanks SchroCat. Very happy to add my s'port. JennyOz (talk) 09:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Jenny - much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

Image licencing and use seem OK to me but I can't find the licence for File:Mothers and Babies welcome, Bunting, A school for mothers Wellcome L0007064.jpg. I would use consistent capitalization for ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged, Jo-Jo Eumerus. Alt text tweaked and the URL updated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Um, this doesn't seem to be a compatible licence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The book is possibly in copyright: the images aren’t. There isn’t a record of the photographer, so according to this, it’s out of copyright. - SchroCat (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the image needs to have its licence template changed to {{PD-UK-unknown}} then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! Cheers Jo-Jo Eumerus, now swapped. - SchroCat (talk) 10:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems OK to me, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Florence_Petty/archive1&oldid=1169158979"