Talk:Elinor Fettiplace/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 04:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Happy to review the article.

Assessment[edit]

Lead section
  • The first two I would say are overlinking, but Glous is now done. - SchroCat (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link wrote a manuscript book doesn't lead where you would want it to, if you want to find out about manuscript books. Amend to something like '...wrote a manuscript book, now known under the title Elinor Fettiplace's Receipt Book,…'.
  • ...in the Vale of White Horse. - I would mention the location of the Vale, in case readers are unfamiliar with it.
  • ...a local man, Edward Rogers. He died in 1623. - improve the prose slightly by amending this to '...a local man, Edward Rogers, who died in 1623.'
  • Fettiplace lived until at least 1647, and it is possible she died that year. - the second part of the sentence is implied by the first. I would amend it here to something like 'She lived until at least 1647.'
  • Elinor Fettiplace (c. 1570 – in or after 1647) - should read Elinor Fettiplace (born Elinor Poole, later Elinor Rogers; c.1570 – in or after 1647)'.
  • Fettiplace's husband… - amend to 'Fettiplace's first husband…'.
  • Isn't that obvious from the context? We've only discussed the one hubby up til then. - SchroCat (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Life
  • Red-link Pauntley (as has been done in other articles).
  • Unlink any multiple links of counties, e.g. Berkshire, Wiltshire.
  • Change link from Dick Whittington to 'Richard Whittington'—he wasn't known as Dick in real life.
  • Done (with a small note about Dick, in case people don't pick up on the reference). - SchroCat (talk) 09:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...the land. - 'their land'?
  • The first paragraph contains a lot of detail of her famous and (sometimes) distant relations. Consider putting their details into a separate note, and reducing the text down to '…Elinor has several notable relations.' or something similar.
  • I think I'd rather keep it in the text. The people are important enough to see the social milieu in which she moved, rather than just a string of titled people few have heard of). - SchroCat (talk) 09:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At present the relatives listed comes over as something of a 'name-dropping' exercise—could it be made clearer that her family moved comfortably in these circles, and weren't 'the poor relations', for instance? Amitchell125 (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We have "The family were well-connected within the upper classes, and Elinor was related ..." to begin the sentence: do you have any suggestion as to how else to phrase it? - SchroCat (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would keep the Raleighs in the paragraph, as Sir Walter returns later, and is a notable figure as well: 'The family were well-connected within the upper classes, and Elinor's living relatives included her cousins, the brothers Sir Carew and Sir Walter Raleigh.'. Her long-dead ancestor Sir Richard Whittington and her uncle (who died old when she was ten) are the people who could be relegated to a note, along with the comments already made about their notability. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done - albeit slightly reluctantly. - SchroCat (talk) 08:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... in the upper classes,... - ' ...with the upper classes,...'?
  • I would omit ...Fettiplace's biographer at the Dictionary of National Biography… and simply describe Spurling as 'the writer Hilary Spurling (that she wrote the DNB article is stated in the Sources section).
  • I've changed for "F's biographer", which is a better description than just "writer". - SchroCat (talk) 09:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...would be providing for between twenty and thirty people, of which five were the family… - as the number of family members varied over time, amend to something like '...would provide for the family and between fifteen and twenty-five others,…'.
  • But that doesn't give a total number, which is the more important figure. Would ...would be providing for between twenty and thirty people, which included her family... suffice? - SchroCat (talk) 09:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's better, in particular as the household her son John's family, and other relatives aside from her husband and children (see comments below). Amitchell125 (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent - done - SchroCat (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...her daughter-in-law… - if her name is known, it should be provided here.
  • Not in the source used, but I'll have a look round to see if it is elsewhere. - SchroCat (talk) 09:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the daughter-in-law referred to her is John's widow, her name was Margaret (Spurlng, opposite p. 39).
Done - SchroCat (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last two paragraphs relate do not relate to her life, and so need to be moved into a different section.
  • Unlink Mrs Beeton (within the quotation).
  • I think I'll leave it in there; it's the only reference we have to Beeton, and without the link anyone who doesn't know who she is will struggle. (I know the MoS says not to link inside quotes, but it's a guideline, rather than set in stone, and there is flexibility within it). - SchroCat (talk) 09:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with that. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was she born 'probably at Pauntley' (here) or probably in Gloucestershire (lead section). The two versions need to be the same.
  • OK, done (but adding the name of a tiny village to the lead isn't going to help any readers!) - SchroCat (talk) 09:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The third paragraph contains five instances of the name Fettiplace in only three lines. Consider improving the prose to something like 'Richard Fettiplace died in 1615 and it appears Elinor then left Appleton Manor, giving advice to her daughter-in-law on how best to run it. Her father died in 1616, leaving £500 in his will for her, and was buried in St Kenelm's Church, Sapperton. His tomb shows his son kneeling with him, and his three daughters, including Elinor, kneeling at the front. It is her only known likeness.'.
  • ... introduced Elinor to… - 'connected Elinor with…'?
  • I'm not sure that's a better choice of word. - SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The identities of her siblings would be useful.
  • Edward Rogers was a Gloucester man (DNB), not just from Gloucestershire.
  • He was from Gloucester, but we'd just be repeating the word "Gloucester" for no benefit. - SchroCat (talk) 09:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the difference is significant, if necessary, state she returned "within her own family's orbit at Sapperton" to avoid repeating Gloucester. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done. - SchroCat (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph hints at her death (In 1647 Fettiplace passed her Receipt Book to her niece…), but the DNB says, "Lady Fettiplace lived on until about 1647, in which year she left her book to her niece Anne, daughter of her brother, Sir Henry…". Imo you need to be as direct as the DNB. Lehman (p. 33) gives the year of her death as being 1647.
  • No, I don't think it's the right step to take. Lehman basis her information on Spurling's 1986 work, which isn't as definite, and the DNB has "d. in or after 1647". We follow what the more reliable of the sources say with "Details of her death are unclear, but it was in or after 1647", which I think are best kept. - SchroCat (talk) 09:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, I agree with you. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Imo Historic England's comment that Appleton Manor is "one of the oldest surviving inhabited manor houses in Britain" is as noteworthy as what Pevsner has to say. I would add this to note b.
  • this link provides the pedigree for Richard and Elinor, which I would consider adding as a link somewhere (Further reading section)?
  • Ref 15 (Theophano) mentions that no daughter survived her, include this detail.
  • The image of the tomb shows two figures - it needs to be clear which one is Elinor (the eldest daughter in the family).
  • I have no idea, nor do any of the sources, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 09:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Further details about Elinor Fettiplace from Spurling's book

The following details about Lady Fettiplace's life and family are not included in the article, and I think they should be in order to cover the main aspects of her life. There is so little recorded about her that I think it's important that this article contains as much as possible that is known about someone who, had it not been for the survival of the remarkable manuscript she had made, would have remained an utterly obscure figure. In roughly chronological order:

  • On the whole much of this is worthwhile adding, but some of it (to my mind, at least) isn't 'core' to the subject and would be better at the Fettiplace article (the f-in-l being knighted, etc). - SchroCat (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • Appleton Manor was acquired in 1564 (p. 5).
  • I'm not sure about this as it is 25 years before she moved there. Let me mull on it - it may be best as a footnote (if that). - SchroCat (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave it to you. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Marriage and family
  • Her brother Devereux, who was a soldier, was killed in battle in France, aged 19 (p. 3).
The article on Elinor's father—Henry Poole (died 1616)—would be a good place to include information Devereux, who was his eldest son.
News of your 19-year-old brother being killed in battle must have affected the teenage Elinor in some way, and his death should be noted in this article, perhaps leaving what impact it had on Elinor to the the imagination of readers. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK - good point. - SchroCat (talk) 07:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now added. - SchroCat (talk) 09:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her father-in-law was knighted by Elizabeth I in 1600 (p. 6).
Agreed. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her children were John (born 1590), 2 daughters who both died as infants, Henry (b. 1602), a third daughter (born c.1593, recorded as being aged 16 in 1609), and possibly another daughter, Elizabeth. (Her surviving children were 11, 2 and 15 in 1604, the date on her book) (p. 12).
  • We cover much of this already, but I'll add the missing details. - SchroCat (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done - SchroCat (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elinor's children were possibly baptised and and some buried at neighbouring Besselsleigh, as they do not appear in the Appleton registers (p. 12).
  • Hmmm... that's just pure guesswork on Spurling's part. There is no record in Appleton, but that doesn't mean they were in Besselsleigh. I'd rather keep it to what is known, or that the historians can logically surmise, but this guesswork is a stretch too far for me. - SchroCat (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and Spurling clearly isn't sure of all the facts herself, but if the article should at least state, as she notes on p. 12, that Elinor's children do not appear in the Appleton registers. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, added as a footnote (let me know if you think it better in the text). - SchroCat (talk) 12:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's fine where you put it. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Fettiplace's elder son John married his cousin in 1606, living at Appleton with his wife and child, along with Elinor and Richard and their other children, and at one point also 2 unnamed sisters of Sir Richard) (p. 12).
  • Added the parts about her son and his family. - SchroCat (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • John died in 1619, the father of a young family (p. 35).
Role at Appleton
  • She would have had a copy of Charles Estienne's book Countrey Farme, which would have help her plan and grow the vegetables and herbs she needed (p. 96).
  • She spend time in the summer and autumn months preserving food for the winter, with the help of her maids (pp. 39-40, 50).
  • Spurling suggests she was a thoroughly up-to-date-cook (p. 26).
  • We cover this already ("the recipes were, for the time, modern, and embraced new tastes and styles, rather than the food of the mediaeval past")
Didn't see it there, thanks. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Personality
  • These, I think, could go in their own sub-section at the end of the Life section. There is just about enough for a good paragraph to justify the extra break. I'll sort that this morning. - SchroCat (talk) 06:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Spurling, "What little is known of Elinor suggests a character quite as forceful as her... ...cousins with the same firm view of her own importance." (p. 9).
  • She never gave up the title of "Ladyship" when she was widowed and then remarried (p. 9).
  • The inscription on her second husband's tomb is entirely in terms of Elinor and her ancestry (p. 35).
  • Spurling notes that she was an "efficient and practised manager" in the way she ran her household and, when her husband was absent, the family estate (p. 10).
  • She had, according to Spurling, a "cautious and considerate approach" to dispensing medicines (p. 20).
  • New section covering all these points now added. - SchroCat (talk) 11:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Her book
  • The book is one of the few household manuscripts to have survived from early a date (p. 10).

More comments to follow. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notes and references
  • I would have separate section titles for Notes, References and Sources, as the current title doesn't include the Sources sub-section.
  • Several of the references are duplicated in the sources, can you not simply have them included in References?
  • No. The mention in the Reference links to that in the Source, which contains all the relevant information, rather than just a shortcut. The refs are consistently done, and it would look very odd to have one or two inconsistently done, I think. - SchroCat (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A (subscription required) tag is needed for the New York Times source.
  • I've added one, but the full article is not behind the subscription paywall - just the original copy on pdf is available to subscribers. - SchroCat (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, I didn't see the text that followed the 'subscription' link. You're right, the tag isn't needed, so I've removed it. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As well as being available from Kindle, Dickson Wright's book is also available online, and It might be useful for readers to cite the book (Dickson Wright, Clarissa (2011). A history of English food. London: Random House. ISBN 978-0-09951-494-7.).
  • I'm fine with the Kindle version being the source (there is no requirement for an online version over the one that was used). - SchroCat (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source "receipt and recipe" (BM) needs a proper citation ("receipt and recipe". Learning: Dictionaries and Meanings, 1879 - 1928 Oxford English Dictionary. British Library. Retrieved 14 June 2020.).
  • It is correct as it stands. It's not correct to say the website is "Learning: Dictionaries and Meanings, 1879 - 1928 Oxford English Dictionary": the website is bl.uk, which is that of the British Library. - SchroCat (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to agree on this point. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elinor Fettiplace's Receipt Book is listed in the Sources section twice.
  • Yes. Deliberately (and correctly) so: once for Fettiplace's recipes, once for Spurling's introduction. - SchroCat (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. Surely the sources are the same book by Spurling. Reference 3 cites p. 247 as well as p. 24, but only the latter page forms part of the Introduction to the book. Similarly, reference 14 cites pages from both the Introduction and chapter 1, but the source this reference is linked to is to the Introduction. References 28 and 31 link to the Introduction, but cite chapters in the book.
Fettiplace didn't write the book, Spurling did, so the source naming Fettiplace should go, and the Spurling source needs to be amended so that the '"Introduction". In Spurling, Hilary (ed.).' is omitted. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, because Fettiplace wrote part of the book - it's her text, copied by Spurling, interspersed with parts written by Spurling. We can't cite it to Spurling where Fettiplace wrote it. I could add Spurling as a co-author to cover the area where both write? - SchroCat (talk) 13:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go with your suggestion, something like,
*{{cite book|last1=Spurling |first1=Hilary |authorlink1=Hilary Spurling |last2=Fettiplace |first2=Elinor |title=Elinor Fettiplace's receipt book: Elizabethan country house cooking |date=1987|origyear=1604|publisher=Penguin Books |isbn=978-0-1400-8828-1}}
Amitchell125 (talk) 15:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now done. - SchroCat (talk) 15:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the wrong edition. We've gone for the up-to-date 2005 edition, not the one from 1970. - SchroCat (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 27 (Hungerford Virtual Museum) is not an acceptable published resource (it cites an evening class publication), and should be replaced.
  • Removed (it was superfluous anyway) - SchroCat (talk) 18:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...and the work has been used as a source in several such published works. References 31 (Time Life), 32 (Singman) and 33 (Sim) don't actually quote Fettiplace's recipes, they only name the recipe book in their bibliographies. Imo this is insufficient for them to be included here in the article. What do you think?
  • We don't claim that the recipes are used in those works, just that her book has been used as a source, which is correct. (And the recipe for Fool in Time Life is from Fettiplace). - SchroCat (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The recipe 'To make a foole' (Spurling, p. 158) is indeed quoted directly in Time Life (without accreditation or comment on the recipe itself), and this instance of when one of her recipes is used to illustrate a point, but I'm not totally convinced it warrants a mention here. Imo it's even less important that her book has been used as a source but not mentioned in the source itself apart from being listed in a bibliography section. At a stretch you could include the Time Life example, mentioning what it was used to illustrate in the book. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather keep the examples as they are: we say the book was being used as a source, and the books concerned all do exactly that – they use the Receipt Book as a source. We're not over-selling the point by claiming it's the font of historiographical knowledge on any subject, just that it is used as a source, which it is. All we are doing is reflecting the reality of the sources, which is what we're supposed to do. – SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I'm convinced (sort of). Amitchell125 (talk) 12:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Image
John Kip, Saperton the Seat of Sr Robert Atkyns (1768)
  • Consider adding the image of Sapperton Manor (right), perhaps with an amended caption. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On hold[edit]

I'm placing the article on hold for a week (until 22 June) to allow for the above comments to be addressed. Thanks for all your work so far on this article! Amitchell125 (talk) 18:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly there[edit]

I'll spend a a bit of time checking through the amendments and correcting minor issues if there are any, like punctuation, but we're nearly there. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. Thanks for all your work on this. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Passing[edit]

Thanks for your efforts, passing now. Why doesn't anyone here at home like the sippets I made for them? Amitchell125 (talk) 20:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for all your efforts here. I've not tried the sippets, I must admit! I get odd looks for some of the dishes I've cooked from the historical sources. When I wrote the article for Hannah Glasse, I gave them on English Rabbit (a version of Welsh Rabbit) for lunch, which is toast, soaked in red wine, cheese put on top, placed in an oven to cook and brown further. I got no thanks for that, but snaffled the lot myself and had a very pleasant snooze during the afternoon. - SchroCat (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elinor_Fettiplace/GA1&oldid=962748619"