Wikipedia:Peer review/Elizabeth Raffald/archive1

Elizabeth Raffald

It took a Yorkshire lass to show the Mancunians how to cook—and to invent the pride of the north west, the Eccles cake. Elizabeth Raffald was an extraordinary character. After working in service, she opened a Register Office to introduce domestic workers to employers; ran a cookery school and sold food, published a superb cookery book and Manchester's first trade directory, ran two important post houses while also giving birth to six children. This article has undergone a re-write and comments on errors and omissions are welcome. Cheers. – SchroCat (talk) 09:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

This is a cracker of an article. It will take me a couple of goes. Here is go number one, down to the end of the Life section:

• "She—and her four sisters—were educated, and her schooling included being taught French" – I see what this means, but it doesn't quite work. I'd mention the four sisters in the first sentence, and just concentrate on her education in the third. "Raffald was born Elizabeth Whitaker in Doncaster, one of the five daughters of Joshua and Elizabeth Whitaker" and then something on the lines of "She was given a good schooling, which included learning French".
• "and she rose" – just "and rose"?
• "where she acted as housekeeper" – "she was"?
• "Raffald was paid £16 a year for her service" – I might omit the last three words.
• "It is possible that John had suggested her for the housekeeper position" – In truth, do we care?
• "the Warburtons's service" – I think this should just be "the Warburtons' service"
• "the couple gave birth to probably six daughters" – this is not my specialist area, but I think only persons of the female persuasion give birth. "the couple had..." would be all right, I think, but what do I know?
• "at least three went to boarding school" – the meaning is clear enough, but for the sake of precision I'd make this "at least three of the girls went to boarding school". And I'm not sure I wouldn't make that "went to boarding schools" - plural, or else "a boarding school".
• "began a Register Office" – capital letters?
• "and she also added cookery classes" – perhaps lose "also"?
• "on Exchange Alley" – this would be her Manhattan branch presumably. If in England you mean "in Exchange Alley"
• "confectionary" – you want "confectionery" here, I think. A confectionary is the place where confectionery is made.
• "supported by over 800 subscribers" – there is a superstition which I must confess to sharing that in such constructions it should be "more than 800" rather than "over 800". I can find no defensible argument to support this shibboleth, but I abide by it nonetheless. No reason why you should do so if you don't want to, but I just mention it.
• "which raised over £800" – ditto, in theory, but just to avoid repetition it might be as well to have one "more than" and one "over".
• "paid Raffald £1,400 for the copyright of the book" – I'm no expert, but the use of the technical word seemed a bit anachronistic (or do I mean catachronistic?). Looking it up, I see the OED records the first use of the word in 1735, and so it looks OK here. Lucky Mrs R!
• "was the likely supplier" – one of the Likely Lads? I think I'd make this "was probably the supplier".
• "At some point the Raffalds...". – seems to me that a new para is called for here.
• "Raffald's cuisine and her ability to speak French resulted in foreign visitors" – perhaps just "... attracted/brought foreign visitors..."?
• "I do think that it might be the best step you could take, for then you would be relieved of all your troubles and anxieties and you really do harass me very much." – Have you been bugging my flat?
• "near the ladies stand" – ladies' with ess-apostrophe, perhaps?
• "there were no offers, so the lease" – I was brung up to believe that "so" is not a conjunction, though I know whippersnappers like you may think otherwise. Again, I just mention the point.
• "He reformed on his return, and joined the Wesleyan Methodist Church, where he attended chapel for the next thirty years" – serve him bloody well right!

More later. I'm hugely enjoying this. Tim riley talk 18:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• All done, per your suggestions. - SchroCat (talk) 09:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Round two

• Cookery section
  • I have only one comment on this (delectable) section, viz that there are a helluva lot of "early"s in the last paragraph.

• Trimmed one of the three - SchroCat (talk) 09:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• Directory
  • "Raffald did not list her shop under her own name, but it was recorded under her husband's name" – I think you could safely lose the repeat of "name" here. Or if you think that too informal, "under that of her husband", perhaps.
  • "this was different to Raffald's usual approach" – different from? (entirely optional, I know, but still ...)
  • "of those 46 were listed as widows" – this could do with a comma after "those", I think.
  • "but any woman who traded in partnership with their husband ... listed under their husband's name" – I'm all for gender-neutral language within reason but there is no conceivable justification for "their" rather than "her" here.
• Legacy
  • "Baldwin bought the eighth edition" – I think you mean "brought", but am not quite certain enough to change it myself as a typo.
  • "She had refused to have her portrait taken" – did people have portraits "taken" before the days of photography?
    • Sorry about this, but I'm still not quite comfortable with the revised wording. Would you consider, "Throughout her life she had refused to have her portrait painted, but Baldwin included an engraving of her in this edition"? Tim riley talk 19:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Well, if it'll stop you niggling or nurgling, then of course... - SchroCat (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
        • Well, it was just that "She had refused to have her portrait done while she was alive" carried a vague suggestion that she was all for it when she was dead. And I do not nurgle. I may wangle my nurdles, but that's none of your business. Tim riley talk 19:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Second para: "plagiarised" occurs twice in short order. I'm struggling to find a synonym to suggest, though. Would it be cheating to suggest recasting so that one of the two became "suffered from plagiarism" or some such?
    • "Copied" is good enough for one of them - SchroCat (talk) 09:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "In her work English Bread and Yeast Cookery" – I think you could lose "her work" here.
  • "Grigson admired Raffald's work, and in her 1974 book" – I'd either add the title or make this "... in a 1974 book".
  • "Arley also consider Raffald" – "consider" needs an s on the end, and I wonder if the sentence might not have more resonance without the "also".

That's all from me. I always like your articles on writers of cookery books, but for some reason that I can't quite put my finger on I enjoyed this one even more than usual. A delight from soup to nuts, to borrow a phrase from an author we both know. – Tim riley talk 20:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• All done from my side. Thanks as always for your comments (and there are an awful lot more of them than usual - mea culpa): hugely useful stuff, and I hope I have done them justice. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Eric Corbett

• "She left her position when she married John ... She opened a register office ... she also ran a cookery school". You need to introduce some variety here.
  • Done - SchroCat (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• This seems to be a general problem, as in "Raffald was born Elizabeth Whitaker in Doncaster ... Raffald was baptised on 8 July 1733"
  • Slightly tricky one this, as there are the names of other women interspersing these mentions, so any "she" could be misconstrued. I've swapped out the final one of the paragraph, to make it a little cleaner. - SchroCat (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• " ... a second Mancunian newspaper". Why not "the" second Mancunian newspaper?
  • Done - SchroCat (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• "... the basis from which the Eccles cake later developed". I'm not sure that cakes have the ability to develop.
  • Done - SchroCat (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• "There are around 270 of Raffald's quotations used in the Oxford English Dictionary." The quotations don't belong to her, but once rephrased it would be nice to see a couple of them.
  • Done this one too. The quotes are only very minor (normally just a reference to the fact she's used the name, but I've included some of the more archaic ones. - SchroCat (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• "... Raffald's recipes onto the menu at the hall's restaurant". Shouldn't that be "into"?
  • Done - SchroCat (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• This will probably introduce a can of worms given the misguided obsession Wikipedia has with gender issues, but "John opened a floristry shop near Fennel Street; Raffald began an entrepreneurial career at the premises" just seems ridiculous to me. Her husband is called John, but she's called Raffald?
  • Yes, it is ridiculous! But given the grief I have got from two editors in particular on this point, this is the path that will bring least objectionable comments. - SchroCat (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Other than those fairly minor issues the article looks fine to me, so good luck at FAC. Eric Corbett 19:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• Fantastic - thank you very much, and for the edits too. I've done some of the straightforward ones, and will polish off the others shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)