Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Everything Tastes Better with Bacon/archive1

Everything Tastes Better with Bacon

Everything Tastes Better with Bacon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Everything Tastes Better with Bacon/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Everything Tastes Better with Bacon/archive2

Nominator(s): -- Cirt (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Everything Tastes Better with Bacon is a WP:GA quality article. Valuable feedback was received during the GA Review, from Hadger, and also during a completed Peer Review, from Casliber and Herostratus – and their suggestions were implemented. Now putting this article for consideration for Featured Article status, as I believe it meets the criteria. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Literature, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bacon. -- Cirt (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Nikkimaria

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you provide publishers for newspapers or not
• ref 22: page? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to Nikkimaria

1. Thank you, good point, I have added in additional publisher info.
2. I accessed this source via NewsBank, and no page number was given. However, I have added a note that it was accessed via this database, to make verification easier for others in the future.

Thank you for your help, -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments from 56tyvfg88yju

• Oppose. Approx. 75% of the article appears to be a cut and paste "quotations" job cited to the cookbook author and her reviewers. How about paraphrasing it ... all of it. I'm not sure it's necessary to list the author's Oregon home and her journalism credentials in the Background section. If we're going to list these we might as well include her alma mater, her sorority, her favorite cooking shows and cookbooks, and her favorite bacon brands. As far as her credentials are concerned, I would prefer to know where and under whom she learned to cook. But I suspect she really hasn't studied cooking in the professional sense. She just writes about food. The contents section features a sort of how-to on cooking bacon. Wikipdia is not a how-to. It might be enough to say "The author includes tips on cooking bacon to maximize flavor and crunchiness" or something to that effect without going into skillets, heavy skillets, ovens, rimmed baking pans, broiler pans, turning versus not turning during cooking, minimizing shrinkage, grease splattering, etc. On the whole, I don't like this article. I think it's unencyclopedic. I feel like I'm being "sold" the book. I want to take a bath after reading it and run my clothes through the washing machine ... all those grease splatters. 56tyvfg88yju (talk) 01:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback — I will strive to address these suggestions, and note it back here when done. -- Cirt (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to 56tyvfg88yju

Thank you, 56tyvfg88yju, for the feedback. I have made several edits to incorporate your suggestions in order to increase the quality of this article.

1. Quotes – I went ahead and took the initiative – and removed all quotations from the article. With quotes diff, without quotes diff.
2. Background – The author's background in journalism and as an author is directly relevant – and other Featured Articles on books actually do include information on the author's prior employment and works before authoring the book itself.
3. Contents – All of the Contents section is sourced to secondary sources, in this manner we are ascribing weight to portions of the book chosen for summary by reliable sources, instead of independently making our own decisions among Wikipedians about what to include. Further, it seems quite odd to suggest reducing the Contents section of a book article on Wikipedia to one-sentence.

Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Improvements have been made but the article lacks the comprehensiveness expected at FA level. For example, we're not told how the book is organized. Is it organized in chapters or sections like "Bacon Main Dishes", "Bacon Cocktails", or "Bacon Cakes and Candy"? Is the book illustrated? Book articles include a separate "Publication history" section and this is needed here. Is the book available in both hard- and softback? Is the book still in print? Cookbooks generally include miscellanea. Are we told of how to dispose of a pan of bacon fat after cooking ten pounds of bacon for a party? Are we told of the best way to rid kitchen towels, tablecloths, and clothing of grease splatters? The "Contents" section still reads like a how-to, whether it's cited to reliable secondary sources or not. Undue weight is given to cooking methods in this section and is borderline copy vio. Some readers such as experienced home cooks will not need to buy the book because you've given them pretty much all they need to know about cooking bacon in this section. For me, the article is uneven and reads like a sales pitch for the book, not an encyclopedia article. The article leaves questions the reader may ask unanswered. I doubt comprehensiveness can be reached here because the article is sourced almost entirely to newspaper book reviews which, of course, do not meet the comprehensiveness expected in an encyclopedia article. It's an acceptable GA article but not up to FA comprehensiveness. 56tyvfg88yju (talk) 07:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, 56tyvfg88yju, for acknowledging that improvements have been made. Thank you for the additional feedback and suggestions. I will see about addressing some of your recommendations, and then note it back here. -- Cirt (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to 2nd set of comments from 56tyvfg88yju

Thank you for these additional comments, 56tyvfg88yju, I was able to address a few of them.

1. Contents – I added info to this sect about structure and organization of the book.
2. Contents – Inserted info in this sect about illustrations in the book.
3. Publication history – I researched and sourced and added a new sect, Publication history – this was actually a great idea because I was able to find info on a publication of the book in another language.
4. I performed searches and research in an attempt to find some additional secondary sources, including perhaps scholarly or academic source coverage – but have not yet been able to find any.

I will continue to attempt to perform additional research to find further source coverage of this book in secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

In examining the lead, I noticed "San Francisco-based". This is not found in the body of the article and nothing can be entered in the lead that is not found in the body. I'm not sure the reader needs this information anyway. It's "flab" that can be trimmed. I checked MoS/Novels and the order of sections should be: Summary (or Contents, I suggest "Content summary"), Background, Publication history, and Reception. I still think the Contents section needs to be trimmed because of copyvio concerns. You've given the reader enough information about cooking bacon that the reader does not need to buy the book. This infringes upon the publisher's and the author's profits. All this info could be reduced to one sentence: "The author includes methods for cooking bacon on the stovetop, in the oven, and under the broiler to maximize its flavor and appearance." This is all that needs to be said to avoid any charges of copyvio. Additionally, the few recipes mentioned are too detailed and again approach copyvio, especially the bagel sandwich and the piecrust. Any home cook can guess how much bacon and cheese to add to the ingredients of the piecrust to mimic Perry's original. This infringes on her right to sell her recipe for a profit. You can rework this passage to read: "Perry includes recipes for a sandwich using bacon, peanut butter and other ingredients, a crunch topping for ice cream, a concoction to top a fruit crisp, and a piecrust that incorporates bacon as an ingredient." Janet Keeler is cited in both the Reception and Impact sections. The material could be combined and placed in one or the other of the sections, probably Reception. 56tyvfg88yju (talk) 03:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to 3rd set of comments from 56tyvfg88yju

Thank you for the additional feedback, I have made some edits to the article to address the above recommendations:

1. I removed "San Francisco-based" from the lede.
2. Re-arranged the sections of the article according to MoS/Novels.
3. Trimmed down the size of the Contents section.
4. Utilized the sentence suggested above by 56tyvfg88yju in the Contents section, "The author includes methods for cooking bacon on the stovetop, in the oven, and under the broiler to maximize its flavor and appearance."
5. Removed detail from the recipes in the Contents section.
6. I used the recommended sentence by 56tyvfg88yjuin the Contents section, "Perry includes recipes for a sandwich using bacon, peanut butter and other ingredients, a crunch topping for ice cream, a concoction to top a fruit crisp, and a piecrust that incorporates bacon as an ingredient."
7. Moved the Keeler info from the Impact section, to the Reception section, as suggested above by 56tyvfg88yju.

Thanks again, -- Cirt (talk) 04:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Better, but I have some problems with the Content summary section. First, I wonder if "believes that" should replace "notes how" in the sentence: "The author notes how consuming bacon products can become habitual." "Notes" suggests to me she is basing her assertion on independent studies or scientific analyses but I suspect the assertion is opinion based on her experience. Do you have any information about the source of her assertion? Also, couldn't "bacon products" be simply "bacon"? I think her assertion can be deleted without harming the article. I've reworked the entire section to tighten it up. The "Publication history" section is too brief for a separate section and I've entered it at the end of the "Content summary" section. Use it or toss it ...

"Perry explains her feelings about bacon in the book's introduction: "In the morning, the sound and smell of bacon cooking in the skillet give me the feeling that I have time. I can relax and savor the day." She offers 70 recipes for bacon-flavored dishes in nine chapters organized by topics that include breakfast, greens, pasta meals, side dishes, party servings, and desserts. Meals and appetizers are discussed. Recipes include a sandwich using bacon and other ingredients, a bacon crunch topping for ice cream, a bacon concoction to top a fruit crisp, and a piecrust that incorporates bacon. Methods are offered for cooking bacon on the stovetop, in the oven, and under the broiler to maximize its flavor and appearance. The book is illustrated throughout with photographs by Sherri Giblin. Bacon was published in paperback by Chronicle Books in 2002, and in French by Les Editions de l'Homme in 2004, as part of the series What a dish!."

I've reworked the "Background" section as well to cut the flab and tighten it up.

"Columnist for The Oregonian, radio restaurant commentator, and cookbook writer Sara Perry had written and published four books (The New Complete Coffee Book, The New Tea Book, Christmastime Treats, and Weekends with the Kids) when her editor at Chronicle Books suggested bacon as a cookbook subject. Bacon was becoming increasingly popular at the time, but Perry believed a paucity of recipes would make the project difficult. Recalling her fondness for honey-baked ham however, she combined sugar and bacon to create dishes, and realized that bacon could be used like "a good spice or wine" in flavoring dishes including salads and pastas. Bacon, she discovered, increased the sweet and salt tastes of food." 56tyvfg88yju (talk) 05:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to 4th set of comments from 56tyvfg88yju

Thank you, 56tyvfg88yju, for the additional feedback. I have made a series of edits to directly incorporate many of your suggestions:

1. Changed "notes how", to "believes that".
2. Removed "products", from "bacon products", changed to just "bacon".
3. Incorporated recommendations from reworked section for Contents summary, directly into the article.
4. Moved the Publication history info, into the Background section.
5. Utilized the above suggested structure and changes for the Background section, and incorporated lots of these good recommendations directly into the article.

Thanks again for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 23:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you're expanding the article, but as the "Genre" section now stands, I anticipate some problems. It's established in the book's title that this is a bacon cookbook, so the first sentence in "Genre" is unnecessary. You tell us "bacon had been "vilified by nutritionists"", but you don't tell us why. This creates problems with the article's comprehensiveness. Eliminate this sentence or tell readers why nutritionists had "vilified" bacon. You then tell us bacon "was becoming an increasingly used cooking ingredient" and cite it to CSM. I don't know how this publication would know this unless they took a worldwide survey. This brings up one of my greatest concerns: The article is cited mainly to newspapers. Has this book not been evaluated by professional chefs and nutritionists? Paula Dean perhaps, or Wolfgang Puck? The White House dietician or head chef? What about food magazines? I would prefer that these sorts of sources were cited rather than newspapers. I may be wrong but I don't believe newpspaper commentators have the expertise to evaluate this book at the culinary professional level. Is there a chance you could dig around among culinary professionals, magazines, and books for some comment on Perry's book, its recipes, and the broader spectrum of bacon in general? The Genre section could be merged with the Background section as the opening paragraph something like this:

"Bacon, long a breakfast staple and fast food burger topping, collided with nutritionists in the last quarter of the twentieth century when its high cholesterol levels and its carcinogenic additives received intense condemnation. The meat industry fought back, and bacon saw a resurgence in popularity. For the first time in cookbook history, tomes devoted solely to the product began appearing on bookstore shelves. Among these was Sarah Perry's Everthing Tastes Better with Bacon in 2002. Perry was a newspaper food columnist and radio commentator and the author of cookbooks on tea, coffee, and Christmas treats, when her editor at Chronicle Books suggested bacon as a cookbook subject. She felt a paucity of bacon recipes would make such a project difficult, but, recalling her fondness for honey baked ham, she combined sugar and bacon to create recipes from appetizers to desserts. Etc."

You may have to depart from newspaper accounts to write about bacon's place in the last quarter of the twentieth century. A style point: Once the book's full title has been established in the first few paragraphs, it can be abbreviated through the rest of the article. Bacon is sufficent. It's not necessary to spell out this long title throughout the article. 56tyvfg88yju (talk) 00:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Tony1

• Comment—all quotes removed? I wonder whether just a few short ones could show us the author's tone. Is she humorous or quirky in places? Tony (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I was responding to the above FAC comment by 56tyvfg88yju (talk · contribs). But please, take a look at the prior version with quotes. Are there any in particular that stand out, that you feel should be added back into the article? -- Cirt (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to Tony1

Thank you for the input, perhaps it was too much to remove all quotes, I will try to add a few back selectively.

1. I added back one quote, to the Contents sect, diff.
2. Also, added in one quote, to the Background sect, diff.

Thanks again for the suggestion, -- Cirt (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Sadads

1. Lead seems a little bare bones. I know it meets enough for WP:Lead but it is not very enticing and could use a little more umph.
2. Content section: Not sure if you need all the instructions on how the bacon should be prepared, I mean they can read the book if they want.
3. "Perry writes, "In the morning, the sound and smell of bacon cooking in the skillet give me the feeling that I have time. I can relax and savor the day."[13] Perry writes how consuming bacon products can become habitual."" - Two perry writes in a row, makes for very mechanical reading,
4. Publication section seems a little out of place, I like seeing them at the end of articles (which is the standard per WP:MOS (novels)) but that is a personal preference thing
5. Reception section could use some summary of the general impression of all the critics at the beginning of that section. Going straight into comments by the reviewers is a little shocking if you aren't prepared, and reads a little bit too much like a list.
6. At several points, two sentences from the same source will each have footnotes. As long as its clear, you don't need footnotes for each sentence

Those are my initial thoughts, I will likely come back through and reread again for some more, Sadads (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Sadads, I will look over these suggestions in more depth and try to address them as best I can. Then, I will note it, back here. -- Cirt (talk) 21:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to Sadads

Thanks very much for these specific helpful suggestions. I have made some edits to address the above recommendations:

1. I added a bit more to the lede/intro.
2. Trimmed a bit down from the Contents sect.
3. Copyedited those sentences, good point, thanks. :)
4. Moved the Publication history sect lower down in the article, per above suggestion.
5. Added a summary intro to the Reception sect.
6. Re-checked cites and trimmed a bit here and there.

Thanks again, -- Cirt (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support - after those changes, everything looks really good, Sadads (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support Everything looks good to me. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Tbhotch

• Infobox

The ALT can be improved

• Lead

Per WP:LEAD, as it is supposed that the information is in the body, references shoudn't go here (excepting WP:LEADCITE).

• Content summary

"Meals and appetizers are discussed.[11][12]" Too short, merge it with another sentence.

• Background

"and cookbook writer Sara Perry had" -> "and cookbook writer, Sara Perry had"

"at Chronicle Books suggested bacon" -> maybe "suggested her"?

• Reception

"Another writer for The Denver Post" -> maybe "Another writer for the same newspaper."

"The Toronto Star review" -> "The review"

• It looks good. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 06:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to Tbhotch

1. I added some more to the ALT in the infobox.
2. Removed the references from the lede.
3. Merged the info with another sentence.
4. Copyedited the sentence, as suggested.
5. Utilized recommendation to edit the sentence.
6. Changed the wording here in Reception sect.
7. Modified the text to just "the review".

Thank you for your helpful comments. -- Cirt (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and thank you for your kind comments about the quality of the article, aside from those comments. Much appreciated! :) -- Cirt (talk) 02:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support I found no other issues. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 19:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! :) -- Cirt (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment What about using Template:Harvard citation no brackets? TGilmour (talk) 19:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Per above suggestion by TGilmour (talk · contribs), I changed the referencing format to Template:Harvard citation no brackets. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to change it to shortened footnotes. My bad. I support if you change it. TGilmour (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I thought I just did change it to shortened footnotes. Perhaps you can explain? -- Cirt (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You changed it to Harvard, but shortened footnotes has better layout. Not a big deal but then it will look more consummate if you change it. TGilmour (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Now it has shortened footnotes formatting. -- Cirt (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Image review: Only image is a non-free cover, and its use appears acceptable. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! :) -- Cirt (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support I appreciate the work that has been done to this article. Reference formatting has been improved so now it is perfect. TGilmour (talk) 22:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Malleus Fatuorum

• Oppose I have several reservations about this article, which unlike TGilmour above I do not think is perfect, but then what is. First a few prose issues:

1. "It was first published in 2002 by publisher Chronicle Books." So it was published by a publisher? How unusual.
2. "... commented favorably of the author's excitement". Should be "commented on", not "of".
3. "Louis Mahoney of the Richmond Times-Dispatch wrote that Perry's technique of cooking bacon was best out of other types of methodologies." Apart fom being a barbarism (missing "the") it seems like a bit of a word salad. And is "methodology" really the right word to be using about cooking?
4. "Assistant Texas Taste Editor for The Dallas Morning News Laura H. Ehret wrote that the book successfully replicated the experience of consuming bacon through its descriptive text." But it no longer does?
5. "Marty Meitus wrote for the Rocky Mountain News that the book had contributed to increasing his appetite for bacon dishes." Very awkward: why not something like "had contributed to his increased appetite for bacon"?
6. "Assistant Texas Taste Editor for The Dallas Morning News Laura H. Ehret wrote that the book successfully replicated the experience of consuming bacon through its descriptive text." How do you consume bacon through a text?
7. "Cindy Hoedel of The Kansas City Star wrote favorably regarding photography in the book by Sheri Giblin." Yuk!
8. "... Sara Perry had written and published four books (The New Complete Coffee Book, The New Tea Book, Christmastime Treats, and Weekends with the Kids) when her editor at Chronicle Books suggested bacon to her as a cookbook subject." That chronology is impossible.
9. "Everything Tastes Better with Bacon received a generally positive reception among book reviews and food critics". Among book reviews or reviewers? Shouldn't that be "from reviewers and food critics" anyway?
10. "Lawson noted the author had compiled fundamental information about bacon together in the book." Compiled together? as opposed to compiled apart?

I could go on and on, but these few examples will hopefully make the point. My other concern is the lack of coverage of what is merely hinted at in the article with snippets like "the phenomenon of works displaying the adaptability of bacon in cooking recipes", and "the more intriguing cookbooks within the topic". Malleus Fatuorum 21:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Malleus Fatuorum, for your helpful comments about points on how to improve the quality of this article. I shall make some effort to address your suggestions, and note it back here afterwards. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to comments from Malleus Fatuorum

Thank you for these suggestions. I addressed the specific ones:

1. Good point, removed word, "publisher", as this is self-evident here.
2. Changed to "commented on".
3. Copyedited sentence, removed "methodology", change to "technique".
4. Good suggestion, removed word, "replicated", changed to "conveyed".
5. Thank you for this recommendation, directly implemented the change to: "had contributed to his increased appetite for bacon".
6. Good point, removed this unnecessary phrasing from the end of the sentence.
7. I see how this sentence could be improved, and I changed the ordering and copyedited it a bit.
8. Broke this sentence apart, to make the chronology a bit more evident. Note: I had changed this sentence previously, per a suggestion from a prior FAC Reviewer, above.
9. Good point, changed it to, "from reviewers and food critics".
10. I see how that was unnecessary, so removed word, "together".

As far as the latter portion of the feedback, more specificity on how to improve the article's quality, would be appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

What's being hinted at is that there's a corpus of work on bacon, so the obvious question is why, and in particular how does this book fit into it? Regarding #4 above, I think that "conveyed" is a better choice of word, but it's still in the past tense. Does the book no longer convey the experience of consuming bacon? Malleus Fatuorum 22:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Good point, I changed it from "conveyed" to "conveys". As to what is being hinted at — unfortunately in the course of my research I did not come across other secondary sources which further analyze what you are referring to. I would most appreciate it if you wish to suggest any secondary sources not yet used in this article — and I would be quite happy to work with you to incorporate them. -- Cirt (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Much as I like bacon I've got some shit shovelling to attend to. Malleus Fatuorum 22:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I fully follow your meaning, but without further specifics from the FAC comments, unfortunately there is not much else that is actionable here to address, having used all available secondary sources in the article text. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It is of course up to the delegates, not me, but I'm suggesting that this article fails the comprehensiveness criteria because it fails to place this book in its context, instead merely hinting at the presence of a context. Malleus Fatuorum 22:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course I respect your opinion, Malleus Fatuorum, however without recommending any additional secondary sources to utilize, I'm just not sure there is anything actionable here to deal with. -- Cirt (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not my job to find sources, that would be yours. If the article makes claims about a corpus of work, which it does, then surely secondary sources can be found. Otherwise the claims have to be removed as unsupported by reliable sources. Malleus Fatuorum 22:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand that. However, I have been over the searches in multiple databases numerous times, and have not found anything more in additional secondary sources — as all the worthwhile ones are already used in the article. -- Cirt (talk) 22:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Cirt, if Malleus is saying "I could go on and on", more work must be required on the prose. Tony (talk) 03:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright, that is something that definitely can be responded to, sure. I'll do my best to work more on the prose. And I'll try to see if I can get a some an editor or two for additional copyediting. :) -- Cirt (talk) 03:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I've added a request for copyediting help to improve prose, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Literature, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bacon and with WP:GOCE. Also posted a note to the two editors listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers with interests in food-articles: Casliber and bibliomaniac15. -- Cirt (talk) 04:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It really doesn't need copy edit. TGilmour (talk) 06:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment "Bacon was becoming increasingly popular at the time, but Perry believed a paucity of recipes would make the project difficult." What project? TGilmour (talk) 06:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The project of writing the book itself. -- Cirt (talk) 06:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I copyedited this, now it's more clear. :) -- Cirt (talk) 06:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, now I'm not just reading but perusing the article and will come up with the comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TGilmour (talk • contribs)

Alright sounds good, I'll try to address those as best I can. :) -- Cirt (talk) 06:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, now I'm eating a cheese with a flavor of bacon – really tasty. TGilmour (talk) 06:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Enjoy! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 06:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and I have preserved a bacon for dinner. Probably, I'll roast it. Roast bacon - one of my favorite dishes. TGilmour (talk) 06:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds enticing. -- Cirt (talk) 06:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. TGilmour (talk) 06:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment "A review in The Toronto Star was negative, and criticized the author's lack of creativity in the recipe selection." How can review criticize author's lack of creativity? Maybe the author of the review? TGilmour (talk) 06:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Copyedited this sentence, made it a bit more clear. -- Cirt (talk) 07:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment "Fran McCullough, author of The Best American Recipes" Maybe "the" before "author"? TGilmour (talk) 07:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Implemented this suggestion in the article. -- Cirt (talk) 07:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support I've just finished carefully reading the article, only two aforementioned and fixed issues were found, so the necessity of copy editing has been obviated. You can remove the request from the Guild. TGilmour (talk) 07:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Truthkeeper88

Comment: I saw this request for a copyedit and decided to have a look at the page. Frankly I think it needs more than a copyedit. I don't understand why this book is notable and I think that point needs to be made clear. Is the author notable? Is this the only cookbook about bacon? Apparently not after looking at Amazon. So, I think it needs to be placed in a genre - i.e is this a niche genre for cookbooks? Do we know the print-run? Do we know how well the book has sold? Have additional editions been printed? And why bacon? A very quick google search showed this article, explaining that bacon is becoming a new cult, like chocolate or olive oil, and this from the Christian Science Monitor saying that bacon has been vilified but is becoming a popular cooking ingredient. I've only scanned the first few lines, but if this is true, then some sort of context needs to be added here. Essentially I don't think this is comprehensive, but not sure it's a topic that can be comprehensive. Also, I'm not sure how much of this actionable, so understand if nothing is done. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Additional comment- it's not strictly necessary to cite the primary source; in other words the "Content summary" doesn't need to be cited (except for direct quotations). But, I think that's probably a matter of style. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Truthkeeper88, for the great ideas! I'll try to get to implementing them soon. :) -- Cirt (talk) 14:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to comments from Truthkeeper88

I've added some info to the article per above helpful suggestions from Truthkeeper88:

1. Utilized suggested source, The Atlantic, in subsection, Genre.
2. Added recommended reference, Christian Science Monitor, to the selfsame section.
3. Incorporated another source from the article, St. Petersburg Times, also into that section.
4. The Genre section now helps to place the book into a greater context within its niche genre, and grounds the reader prior to reading about its Impact, later on in the article. :)

-- Cirt (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)