Talk:Elizabeth David bibliography/GA1
GA Review[edit]
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 15:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Will begin review this evening.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Lead
- "Elizabeth David, the British cookery writer, published eight books in the 34 years between 1950 and 1984, eight years before her death. " I think "the last of which was published" before eight years would make it clearer here.
- What is a "literary executor"?
- "David's first five books comprised recipes interspersed, particularly in the earlier works, with literary quotations, and with her descriptions of the places and people whence she drew her inspiration. "whence" looks frightfully old-fashioned to me. I'd word it as "David's first five books, particularly the earlier works, contained recipes interspersed with literary quotation and descriptions of people and places which inspired her."
- "ice". Do you mean icing in terms of cakes or literally ice? Seems odd that ice would have much history, being simply frozen water!
- Background
- In using the words "magnificent" and "terrible" I think you should clarify for neutrality purposes it is "which she believed was" rather than simply stating it was magnificent or terrible.
- I think you should really link Cairo, as you've linked Antibes, I recall though on another article you stated why you didn't.
- WP:OVERLINK bids us not to blue-link capitals and countries in the ordinary way of things. Tim riley (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Mauritius is a country and you linked it!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Mediterranean food
- Inconsistency in wording with Second World War. World War II I'd prefer.
- No links for Horizon Press or Penguin Books?
- linked the latter; we haven't, unless I'm going dottier than usual, got an article on the former (which is not the same as the Horizon Scientific Press). Tim riley (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- French country cooking
- Italian food
- Again delink "The Observer"
- Why have you suddenly capitalized Soups etc? Because they are the chapter names? Does stand out a bit but I think it's OK. "with chapters entitled" would make the use of capitals seem more in context though.
- Summer cooking
- Why have you only linked Mauritius in Britain, India, Mauritius, Russia, Spain and Turkey? Seems odd.
- According to the MoS, Mauritius as a country should be delinked..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- à la provençale is Italicized and obviously refers to a style, but no link or explanation?
- French Provincial cooking
- "Pot-au-feu" Should this be italicized?
- Harvest of the old
- mediaeval - I think that this wording is still acceptable but does stand out as an old fashioned spelling!
- Spices, salts
- "Not all call for unfamiliar spices" seems a strange expression, "not all use exotic spices" or something would seem to fit better.
- Fine. Done.
- Writing Awards
- Not sure the relevance of this section, I'd be inclined to move either sentence to the era of the book publication it applies to.
- References
- Published needed for ref 61.
- Done.
- Ref 62 title in lower casing?
- Images
- I personally have no problems with it but I'm sure certain editors on here would frown on the use of 5 fair use images in one article. I think it would worsen the appearance to remove them but technically to illustrate with the covers you need to literally display that they are being use for critical commentary on the covers themselves. Silly, I know, I'm not going to ask you to remove any, but at some point don't be surprised if somebody comes along and robs you of them, they've done it to me! That'll be all Master Timothy.
- I pondered hard about this, and studied Wikipedia's rules carefully before uploading and adding the images. I think I am within the letter and the spirit of the rules, not least because if this article were chopped up into single articles on each book, few people would raise an eyebrow at a fair-use image for each article – so the net result is the same. Tim riley (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
The lead could probably be improved further, but the article looks fine for GA, has all the major points and is well-written and informative. Nice job!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)