Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Isabella Beeton/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) 23:09, 23 January 2016 [1].

Isabella Beeton edit

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isabella Beeton was a remarkable woman. Although thought of as a cook, based on her 1861 work Mrs Beeton's Book of Household Management, she was actually a publisher, writer and editor. A tragically short life—she died at the age of 28—her impact has lasted over 150 years and her book has never been out of print, although she is much maligned by some modern writers. This has been through a hugely productive and constructive PR and is ready for FAC consideration. All constructive comments are welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Don't italicize WorldCat
  • FN106 and similar: BBC is the publisher
  • Check for consistency in wikilinking - for example, OUP is linked in FN114 but not 102
  • Authors with the same last name but different first names should have the first person alphabetically placed first
  • How are you ordering multiple works by the same author? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many thanks Nikkimaria. All now sorted per the above. re your last point, I've gone for chronological order - oldest first. I think I've got these all. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Tim riley: As a generally v. happy reviewer from the peer review I have only one quibble now: I still think the lead ought to reflect the fact that the "Mrs Beeton's" known to generations of late-19th and early/middle-20th century women was far removed from and inferior to the version put together by Isabella – Christopher Driver's phrase "progressive debasement", quoted in the main text, seems very much to the point – and I think the lead ought to make it clear that for many decades "Mrs Beeton's" was a poor and misguided version of Isabella's original. That apart, I have nothing but praise for this article, which I much enjoyed rereading. I shall support its promotion anyway, but I hope SchroCat will consider including the above point in the lead. – Tim riley talk 01:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Tim for your thoughts and comments both here and at the very productive PR. I hope this addition covers your very germane point. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Indeed it does, and I gladly support the FA candidacy. Meets all the FA criteria, most enjoyably. You've done Mrs B. full justice. Tim riley talk 21:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I had the pleasure of reading this article as a result of my involvement at the peer review a week or so ago. My comments there were all swiftly dealt with and I'm happy to support this culinary delight. CassiantoTalk 19:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Cass - your thoughts on the PR were very much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article looks in good shape for FA, many comments seems ot have been addressed at PR. Excellent job!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks indeed for the prose review at PR and your subsequent re-read – all very much appreciated indeed. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I, too, had my say at PR, and have since picked away at the prose. An excellent article on a valuable topic. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Josh, many thanks indeed for your thoughts and comments at PR, and the subsequent prose tweaks. Your input has been much appreciated. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: As yet another peer reviewer whose concerrns were addressed there, I have only a couple of additional points to bring up here:

  • I may be pernickety, but is it accurate to describe Elizabeth David as a "cook"? Cookery writer, certainly, but did she ever earn her living slaving over a hot stove? I'm a bit dubious, too, about the badger-munching Dickson Wright, though she did sort of cook, as a so-called "celebrity chef".
  • The caption in the lead image, "Beeton, c. 1854", is a little too terse for my liking, and as she didn't marry Beeton until July 1856 she wasn't actually Beeton then. Your other captions are more generous; I recommend an extension to: "Isabella Beeton, née Mayson, photographed in about 1854" – or something along those lines.

Otherwise, first class stuff. Brianboulton (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Brian: those last couple of tweaks now made and I thank you for them, and youe earlier suggestions. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:41, 19 January 2016 (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/Isabella_Beeton/archive1&oldid=1138464097"