Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Elizabeth David/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2017 [1].

Elizabeth David[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) and Tim riley talk 10:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth David was a woman who had an unlikely effect on British culture in the latter half of the twentieth century: through her first six books and numerous articles and essays, she managed to get the British to actually think about what they were eating. In doing so, she revitalised British home cooking, and her legacy is still preached by cooks today. This article has undergone an extensive rewrite and expansion recently, and a well-attended and very productive PR. – SchroCat (talk) and Tim riley talk 10:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Check caption grammar throughout - centuries used as adjectives should be hyphenated, captions should end in periods when complete sentences and otherwise not, etc.
    • Full stop added to one caption; one hyphen ditto. I think that's all that was needed. Tim riley talk 16:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC) Later: no, a second hyphen was needed, and now added. Tim riley talk 16:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Elizabeth-David.jpg: don't use the unique histor ic images tag for this purpose. {{non-free biog-pic}} would be more appropriate.
  • File:Elizabeth_Gwynne_(David)_1923.jpg needs a US PD tag
    • Not sure which tag would be appropriate. Can you advise, please? English work, orig publication date not known, painted 1923, artist died 1927. Tim riley talk 16:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do we know when and where this was first published? If the 2000 book was first, that will be a problem as far as US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I say, orig publication date not known. I was wondering if the fact that the artist died more than 100 years ago (4 January 1927) is relevant? Tim riley talk 17:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • If it were published early on or never published at all, yes. But a 2000 first known publication date is a problem: it falls into the 1978 to 2002 bracket here. That's why the URAA tags generally specify a pre-1978 publication. Do we know of any earlier publication, even if it's not the original? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm afraid not. I think it a racing certainty, especially as the artist was notable (he has a WP article) that a painting of the daughter of a member of the ruling classes would have been reproduced soon after completion, in the fine art press, the society press, the local papers, or all three, but I have no proof at all to back up that supposition. Does that mean the file has to be deleted? Tim riley talk 17:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • Possibly - I'll see if I can find an alternative source. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                • For permission to reproduce the image, Cooper thanks Steve Grey, son of Elizabeth Gwynne's younger sister Diana, who married Christopher Grey (for the relationship, see Papers of Elizabeth David). Perhaps Steve Grey or his family would know something about the image's history. SarahSV (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Norman_Douglas.jpg: Commons history indicates this photo has been edited, which would seem inconsistent with the requirements of the licensing tag?
    • It looks as though they are not requirements but requests, and, as the image is in the public domain, presumably unenforceable. More to the point, perhaps, the one here and the original in the Congress Library look the same to me, and the one here is not "colorized or cropped". What think you? Tim riley talk 16:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not sure how strictly the estate would interpret "preserve the integrity", although you are correct that we are legally free to do whatever. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:A_Book_of_Mediterranean_Food_cover.jpg should include a more expansive FUR
  • File:Renato_Guttuso_1960.jpg needs a US PD tag
    • Looking into this one. - SchroCat (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The always excellent We hope—who can track down image information better than anyone I've yet seen on WP—has searched for the relevant information and come up with nothing that would allow us to think this is PD in the US. Now removed. - SchroCat (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:La_Belle_Limonadière_-_Planche_N°98_de_l'Album_du_Bon_Genre_-_Paris_1827.jpg needs a US PD tag
    • Not sure what to do about this. The Commons image has the PD-old tag on it, which I thought covered all ancient images. Tim riley talk 16:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added PD-US-1923, which I think should cover it. Please let me know if it's the wrong one. - SchroCat (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm here, I'll also mention that citation formatting needs editing for consistency. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Would you like to point out any inconsistencies? I have twice been through the citations and believed I had got them all into shape. (Quandoque dormitat Homerus, of course.) Tim riley talk 16:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some examples: many of the citations are written freehand, but then some use templates. 162 and 262 both cite WorldCat, but look quite different. 285 and 289 are both online newspapers, but are ordered differently. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is down to me, as SchroCat kindly indulged his senescent collaborator and left my mediaeval system of citations intact. I think I have now (third attempt!) got them all into shape. Thank you – as ever – for your eagle-eye and patient help, Nikkimaria. Tim riley talk 15:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per my comments at the peer review, here.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Wehwalt, both for support here and your most helpful input at PR. Tim riley talk 16:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto! Many thanks Wehwalt. - SchroCat (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "According to an interview with Chaney" It is obviously David speaking, but you should say so.
  • "Tony David proved ineffectual in civilian life, unable to find a suitable job, and ran up debts, partly from a failed business venture." This does not look right to me grammatically.
    • I think I drafted that sentence, and though I think it is grammatically correct, it isn't the most elegant of my writing. Changed ", and" to "; he". Tim riley talk 19:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and to put distance between her and her husband" I would say "herself" rather than her.
    • I would prefer not to use the reflexive here, though I wouldn't dismiss it as wholly wrong. I hoped Fowler would have something to say, but for once he's no help. Tim riley talk 19:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1977 David was badly injured in a car accident" I think a sentence giving more information about the accident would be helpful.
    • I've added more about the injuries, rather than the accident, which is the more interesting side of things. - SchroCat (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for these, Dudley. Looking forward to any further thoughts you may have on the piece. Tim riley talk 09:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There have been many flashings of neon in the postwar food firmament, but there is only one star. Her name is Elizabeth David." I doubt the value of this quote from 1970. One on her role in improving cooking would be good (or even English life as with the Auberon Waugh comment), but not a near 50 year old claim that she is the only star.
  • "Janet Floyd, the professor of American Literature, identifies that David" I find the word "identifies" jarring in this context. "points out" or "argues" would be better.
  • "The message of "real food"," The source does not use the pretentious term "real food".
  • This is a very interesting and well written article. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, Dudley, I missed these additional comments entirely: I'll get on to them shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • All now dealt with, thanks Dudley! - SchroCat (talk) 13:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I add my thanks to SchroCat's for your comments and support. Much obliged, sir! Tim riley talk 16:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Edwininlondon[edit]

Very nice piece of work. I had never heard of her, and although initially I found the personal life bits a bit questionable, but gradually I got to see why those bits are there. The prose is of enviable quality. Very few things to question:

  • In the US cooks --> to avoid a garden path I suggest you add a comma
  • realized is American English and ageing is British. I realise that "realized" is in a quote. Does this make it ok?
    • "realized" is old-fashioned BrEng as well as current AmEng. The Oxford University Press still clings to it, and so, in theory, though not always in practice nowadays, does The Times. Mrs David was certainly of the generation that used "–ize". Tim riley talk 20:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • When David's first book, Mediterranean Food was -> a comma before was?
  • Stein, Slater and Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall -> Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall was already linked
  • Others, including Nigel Slater, Gordon Ramsey, Jamie Oliver -> Oliver was already linked
  • note 28 is in need of a reference

Again, a remarkable effort. Edwininlondon (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you very much for these suggestions, and for your kind words. Tim riley talk 20:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • My thanks also, Edwininlondon. – SchroCat (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Brianboulton[edit]

I peer-reviewed this article twice: a detailed review in 2011 when I was young, and a briefer version a couple of weeks ago, when I found little of substance to quarrel with. I did raise a slight caveat about possible over-detailing, but no one else has echoed this concern. I agree that the general quality of the prose is excellent, and the presentation superb. So no further quibbles from me (except, see sources review below). Brianboulton (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for both reviews, Brian, and for your support here. I have pruned the books section a little, following your comments at the second PR. Tim riley talk 22:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing my thanks, too, for your thoughts at PR and here. They are much appreciated, as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 05:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

  • General point re online newspaper sources: when the source is a website rather than the paper itself, you need to add a retrieval date. You have done this with, e.g. 283, 287 and 288, but not 33, 77, 120, 133, 182, 189. 193, 227, 249, 255, 262, 273, 275 (list may not be exhaustive)
    • I don't know what the source is for that alleged requirement. I've been away from WP, it's true, but this is certainly a new one on me. For verification purposes the date of publication in whatever medium is all that is required as far as I can see, and I can't think what extra value is added by saying when I looked at it. Though I suppose if we've done it for some we might as well do it for all. I'll wield the clipboard accordingly. Tim riley talk 22:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tim, I think I've caught all these, but could you cast your eye over to make sure I've not missed any? - SchroCat (talk) 09:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've printed the citation list out and been through it line by line: I am confident you've picked up all those where a retrieval date is wanted. Tim riley talk 17:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 63: The source is "Imperial War Museums" (plural)
  • Ref 120: the article is from The Observer, not The Guardian
  • Ref 158: Wrong WorldCat link
  • Ref 187: The title is "The Cult of Elizabeth David" – and retrieval date required.
    • I've picked up on these bottom four and will race Tim to getting the first one done shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 05:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, all sources are of appropriate quality, and are impeccably presented. Brianboulton (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, BB, my querulous comment notwithstanding. These points will be dealt with by SchroCat (who is ahead of me, I see) and self. Tim riley talk 22:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Brian. - SchroCat (talk) 05:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning retrieval dates. I think the argument is that the online version of a newspaper/journal article is generally a transcribed version, and may not be identical to its printed original. If the article can be accessed in its original format (as with Proquest), then the need for retrieval dates does not apply. Brianboulton (talk) 10:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from KJP1[edit]

I can't match Brian's double Peer Review, but I did nit-pick my way through the second and I've really nothing further to query or quibble over here. It is a superb, collaborative, piece of work. I knew of David, but nothing in detail of her life and impact. The article presents all of this beautifully, and it's undoubtedly one of the best Wikipedia has to offer, fully meriting Featured status. KJP1 (talk) 06:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KJP1, thank you for that. She was quite a gal, wasn't she? So glad you enjoyed the article, and your support is most gratefully received. Tim riley talk 17:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your thoughts at PR and here KJP1 - all very much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support by William_Avery[edit]

Speaking as one who can be quite picky about prose, I found this a pleasure to read.

One possible addition has occurred to me since I commented in the last peer review, which is that the auction of the subject's kitchen effects brought unexpectedly high prices, with at least one notable buyer, and was widely reported at the time. However, I'm not sure it's covered in good enough sources; but I'll put some links here anyway.

William Avery (talk) 00:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for this support, and for your input at the peer review. The auction is covered in detail in the Chaney biography. Having divided up the sections between us when we started overhauling the article, I'll defer to my co-conspirator SchroCat on whether to add details, and if so what. Tim riley talk 12:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks William Avery; I've added a small sentence or two at the end of "Later years", which should cover the important points. Thanks also for your thoughts at PR. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jim[edit]

Comprehensive and a great read, agree totally regarding garlic presses and shop bread. Just a couple of quibbles you are free to ignore

  • ancestor on her father's side, also Dutch and Sumatran seems too vague. I could probably describe myself as a Viking on that basis
    • To be honest this is a sop to a previous editor who made a production number of her ancestry, which I have reduced to the present wording. I wouldn't mind making it smaller still, but discretion is the better part of valour here. Tim riley talk 19:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe link the now-defunct Yugoslavia?
  • Why "funghi" spelling? You are not quoting as far as I can see, so I'd expect English sp?
    • I dithered about this, and finally concluded that in English "fungi" can mean any funguses, edible or poisonous, whereas in Italian "funghi" means edible ones, and so I stuck with that. Tim riley talk 19:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just to emphasise the fact it's in Italian I've italicised, which should stop people correcting the spelling. - SchroCat (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are regions of France (Corsica) and Italy (Sicily) linked, but not US states (California)?
    • Fair point. Shall link.

Cheers, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And cheers, not to mention warmest thanks, to you Jim for comments and support. (I'm not sure I agree with you and Mrs David about garlic presses, but please keep this to yourself.) Tim riley talk 19:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Jim – I'm much obliged to you. (I agree with you and her about shop bread, which is why I bake my own, but was shocked when I found out she preferred instant coffee to real coffee). - SchroCat (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with all the changes, although "mushroom" comes to mind as an edible fungus possibility. (Off topic) I acquired some blewits recently, delicious with a cream and brandy sauce on toast (home-made bread of course) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Chiswick Chap[edit]

I haven't much to add to the careful comments above, having already said most of what I might have said at Peer Review. It's a fine article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why not wikilink South Wind, and state that it was Douglas's best-known novel too.
    • Mea culpa! I hadn't thought to check if Douglas's book had a WP article. Now linked. Tim riley talk 20:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to set the record straight, and said" should perhaps be "to set the record straight, stating".
    • Done (poaching one of my partner's shots, but he'll forgive me). Tim riley talk 20:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, CC, for your input here, at PR and throughout the article. Tim riley talk 20:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Echoing my thanks, CC, for the reviews here and at PR - they have been most welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ssven2[edit]

Good to see you two stalwarts back in the midst of things after a while. A very interesting and pleasant read. My only query is that you can archive all the references (URLs that is) to avoid any dead links.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 15:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Ssven2, much obliged. Yes, we probably should archive the links - I'll sort that out at some point soon. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adding my thanks. (SchroCat: I must get you to show me how to do that archiving. I think you have tried once before, but I didn't quite get it: a full tutorial needed, I think.) Tim riley talk 21:36, 29 November 2017 (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/Elizabeth_David/archive1&oldid=1136097997"