Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Everything Tastes Better with Bacon/archive2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments from 99of9[edit]

  • I'm considering helping with the review, but I'd first like to know if you (Cirt) have any conflict of interests with either the book or the author? This question is meant in good faith - I'm a little surprised that such a detailed article has been written about a cookbook, thus am a little wary. --99of9 (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Answer to 99of9: Thank you, 99of9 (talk · contribs), for your good faith question. Answer: Nope. Zero. I have no conflict of interest with the book or the author. I decided to work on the topic, as part of the "Bacon WikiCup" of years past, since defunct, and subsumed by WP:BACON. That is why I worked on the quality improvement for this article. — Cirt (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unrelated to this FAC: It was a lot of fun competing with you in the Bacon WikiCup, by the way. I'm still sad that SuperHamster disappeared from Wikipedia. SilverserenC 02:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks for the clarification. Sorry I asked in the wrong location. --99of9 (talk) 07:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, and thanks for agreeing to move this to the talk page. — Cirt (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Some more info on above related history in The Signpost WikiProject report on Bacon, at WikiProject Report - Sizzling: WikiProject Bacon (from 15 November 2010). — Cirt (talk) 08:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from SandyGeorgia[edit]

Thank you for the notification, but my only feedback on the previous FAC was in my capacity as FAC delegate, to clarify a procedural issue. On a side note, it is inaccurate to state here that the previous nomination was "forced off-course" by a sockpuppet. The previous nomination was archived after serious copyediting concerns were expressed by experienced reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and there has been significant copy-editing during and since the prior FAC. But unfortunately much time during the prior FAC was devoted to responding to comments which later turned out to be sockpuppeting. — Cirt (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments to 99of9[edit]

(moved from User talk:99of9)

  1. I've been through a lot of significant effort and research about this article, which, as stated initially, was a "Bacon WikiCup" entry originally and that is how I got motivated to work on it and now it is part of WP:BACON.
  2. I've been through a great deal of research on this project.
  3. Unfortunately, I can't really address comments at FAC unless they are specific or able to be found in additional secondary sourced references.
  4. I am quite nervous about this particular FAC because a huge amount of time was wasted at the last FAC by what turned out to be a  Confirmed and now indef blocked sockpuppet, so I was basically talking that whole time the last time to a sock of an indef blocked user.
  5. I very strongly feel that the article's topic has received significant coverage among a great amount of secondary sources and is worthy of being FA.
  6. I would love further specific comments, but comments that state that no matter what I do, that just because the topic itself in someone's opinion should not be FA, that nothing I could ever do would help, that is very discouraging indeed.
  7. I would love it if you wanted to look at the prior GA version for more quotes, but I don't want quotations in this article as they caused problems at prior FACs I have been involved in and better to just not have quotations.
  8. Please, I have been very responsive to every single one of your points and suggestions and recommendations and they are for the most part helpful and where specific I will do my best to respond to them.

Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I work on many articles that cannot possibly achieve FA unless more is written about their topic in secondary sources. I'm not sure if this is true for this book, that's why I'm asking questions and noting what I see as deficiencies in the article as it stands. Some of them you have been able to fill out - great! I realize that if I vote oppose, it will be disappointing for you, given the nerves and work that you have put in, especially if it is impossible to address the issue due to a shortage of coverage. This is not due to some kind of distaste for the subject itself - my questions are all answerable, and I think important for breadth of coverage. But since I'm not a subject expert, I do not know the answers, or whether they have been answered in secondary sources. You should be proud of the job you've done, even if I vote oppose, this is a great article for such a niche topic - it's just that some topics haven't received much breadth of coverage elsewhere yet. (Oh, and do not fear, I am not a sock!) --99of9 (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am hopeful that you will understand that I am doing my best to respond to every single one of your points raised as best I can, in a manner that at the same time does not conflict with other points raised by commenters at this FAC and the prior FAC. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand. You're doing a good job in the FAC. --99of9 (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I appreciate that acknowledgement. A lot. I really do. Especially after ordeal with the socking at the last FAC. — Cirt (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed comments from Crisco 1492[edit]

    • Lead sentence has too many commas. Suggest splitting.
    • in France in 2004 - translated?
    • Her book includes 70 recipes for bacon-flavored dishes and desserts. - rather redundant to the full title.
    • The Denver Post included it in a list of best cookbooks - of 2002, of the 2000s, of the month?
    • "bringing home the bacon" - Link to Wiktionary?
    • The book sold for a retail price of USD18.95 in its initial publication. - too much detail
    • A French paperback edition was published in 2004 by Les Editions de l'Homme, as part of its "What a dish!" series. - In translation? Also, is the series entitled "What a dish!" or does it have a French name?
    • Atkins diet - clarify how it pushed for more eating of meat.
    • Giblin's photography received favorable commentary from Cindy Hoedel of The Kansas City Star. - Any delicious quotes?
    • Parrish added that Dr. Robert Atkins would think favorably of the "Gorgonzola Cheeseburgers with Bacon" dish. - Make relation to Atkins' diet clearer. Not sure if "dr" is necessary.
    • The review concluded the book was a good deal compared to other cookbooks on the subject, while noting its lack of comprehensiveness. - Any particular recipes omitted?
    • bacon renaissance not really connected to reuse in other books, suggest splitting
    • the book was a surprising addition to the field. - why
  • Otherwise solid work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Thanks very much for these helpful comments, I shall address them and respond back here shortly. — Cirt (talk) 04:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Response to comments by Crisco 1492
  1. Trimmed lead sentence. Split in two.
  2. Clarified this is in French language.
  3. Trimmed dup use of 70 from this sentence.
  4. Clarified this is of all of 2002 year.
  5. Linked to Wiktionary.
  6. Keeping this detail due to request by 99of9 (talk · contribs), see above in this FAC.
  7. Clarified this with French title of series.
  8. Added French name for this.
  9. Clarified Atkins impact, not much more in actual source on this so that's all there is to say from that source.
  10. Not including any quotes, due to multiple comments about quotes from last FAC.
  11. Clarified Atkins. Removed Dr.
  12. Clarified this was criticism of small number of total recipes, not omission of any recipe in particular.
  13. Moved this sentence earlier.
  14. Not much else said on this from source, just: that the book "startled" some people, per source.

— Cirt (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Re: Atkins diet. At the very least a footnote, as the fact that Atkins pushed for higher meat consumption is quite significant here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Added Footnotes sect. Added info on fact that Atkins pushed for higher meat consumption. — Cirt (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed comments from Cassianto[edit]

A great effort and short but sweet (or salty if you like ;)

  • "Parrish wrote that she enjoyed sampling the recipes from the book. Parrish added that Dr. Robert Atkins would think favorably of the 'Gorgonzola Cheeseburgers with Bacon' dish." -- I think we can get away with a pronoun at the start of the second sentence.
  • "Everything Tastes Better with Bacon is a niche work in the cookbook genre."[28][6] -- Check ref order.
  • Commonly used words are linked when they shouldn't be. "chocolate", "olive oil" are two here. Earlier, we have "salad", "ice cream", "pasta", "breakfast", "bacon sandwhich" and "oven", I think it very unlikely that there wouldn't be anyone who hasn't heard of these.
Reference formatting queries (spot checks not done).
  • I have fixed on dash for page ranges, I can't see any more.
  • Consistency is needed. We have "^ Crooks 2002, p. D1" but later have hyphens "^ Mahoney 2003, p. D-1". Which is correct?
  • Reference 9 is missing a page number.
  • Should reference 4 be "01" or just "1"?
  • Ref 22 missing page number.
  • Ref 25 missing page number.
  • Ref 41 missing page number.

That's it. -- CassiantoTalk 09:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Thank you, I should be able to respond to all of the above comments within the next several hours. — Cirt (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Comments resolved. A good article on a quirky subject. -- CassiantoTalk 20:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the Support! — Cirt (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Response to comments from Cassianto
  1. Added pronoun.
  2. Fixed ref order.
  3. Delinked common words.
  4. Went through and made fixes for cite uniformity.
  5. No page number given in original source for this.
  6. Fixed ref here for just page number without zero before it.
  7. No page number given in original source for this.
  8. No page number given in original source for this.
  9. No page number given in original source for this.

— Cirt (talk) 19:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed comments from Cassianto moved to talk page, per agreement with user, see diff. — Cirt (talk) 01:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed comments from Tbhotch[edit]

Comments by Tbhotch

This is what I found, nothing serious though Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC):[reply]

"The book offers 70 recipes for bacon-flavored dishes, in nine chapters..."; per WP:NUMERAL "five cats and 32 dogs." is not OK.
"The review was critical of the author's desert recipes"; I guess that's a typo.
"Everything Tastes Better with Bacon is a niche work in the cookbook genre.[28][6]"; should be [6][28].
Reply: Okay, thank you, I'll respond to this soon, — Cirt (talk) 06:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Response to comments from Tbhotch
  1. Fixed this, changed "nine" to "9".
  2. Fixed this typo, thanks for pointing it out.
  3. Fixed ref order here.

— Cirt (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the Support! — Cirt (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed comments moved to talk page, per agreement with user, see diff. — Cirt (talk) 03:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed comments from Jimfbleak[edit]

Support Comments by Jim Interesting article. First read comments follow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • greens— I don't know what this means in a US context
  • and under a broiler to maximize its flavor and appearance— having a chicken sitting on it would certainly change the appearance and flavour (:
  • The use of "broil" as a cooking term is unfamiliar on my side of the Atlantic (we would say "grill"). is there any helpful link/gloss? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bacon was becoming increasingly popular— I don't understand, it's been around for centuries, and never out of favour afaik
  • Assistant Texas Taste Editor—really?
  • minimal nutritional value:— it's entirely protein and fat, so I don't understand the comment
  • was it only published in the US and France?
  • Multiple refs should be in numerical order
  • Newspapers should be italicised throughout notes and references as well as text
  • Publishers for all books or none
  • My error, I meant to put book publisher locations. All your further reading and two references have the city, the other referenced books don't. You need to be consistent. Also, don't abbreviate US states (Pruess) not necessarily familiar to foreigners Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do we need to be told London is in England, but are assumed to know which Boston is intended?
Reply: Thanks very much for these comments, will respond here soon. — Cirt (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the Support! — Cirt (talk) 06:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Response to comments from Jimfbleak
  1. Clarified this is leaf vegetables.
  2. Removed these incorrect wikilinks.
  3. Fixed this sentence, copyedit it a bit more.
  4. Yes, really, I double-checked the source and this is in the byline itself. I added this to the citation.
  5. Clarified this was criticism from nutritionists.
  6. Yes, or rather only in the US and Montreal.
  7. I fixed order of refs, will go through and check again for another pass.
  8. Went through and italicized some more names of newspapers.
  9. I checked and all books cited should have publishers now.
  10. Added state for Boston.

— Cirt (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to 2nd set of comments from Jimfbleak
  1. Done. Changed "broil" to "grill", a more universally understood term.
  2. Notes 18 and 38 cannot have italics as this will break the link formatting. This was noted, by another FAC commenter, 99of9 (talk · contribs), above. I made sure that the same information is italicized in the References sect.
  3. I went through and removed location info for books, so as to have consistency, per your comments.

— Cirt (talk) 06:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed comments moved to talk page, per agreement with user, see diff. — Cirt (talk) 06:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed comments from Brianboulton[edit]

Additional comments from BB. A nice, easy read. Just a few issues before supporting:

  • To me it would seem logical to swap the order of the "Contents" and "Background" sections
  • I think the convention is to use $ rather than USD when the article is about an American subject within America
  • "Everything Tastes Better with Bacon is a niche work in the cookbook genre". I suggest you attribute this statement to avoid the impresson of editorialising.
  • The latter part of the article's final sentence doesn't make sense to me. Can you clarify?

That's all. These should be easy to fix. Brianboulton (talk) 15:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comments from Brianboulton
  1. Done. Swapped the order of the "Contents" and "Background" sections.
  2. Done. Changed to $ rather than USD.
  3. Done. Attributed this statement to the sources used.
  4. Done. Trimmed latter part of article's final sentence, wasn't needed for clarity.

Thank you for these helpful suggestions, — Cirt (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the helpful comments and the Support! — Cirt (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed comments moved to talk page, per agreement with user, see diff. — Cirt (talk) 21:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/Everything_Tastes_Better_with_Bacon/archive2&oldid=1079681734"