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.
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.
"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." Perry writes how consuming bacon products can become habitual."" - Two perry writes in a row, makes for very mechanical reading,
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
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.
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:
I added a bit more to the lede/intro.
Trimmed a bit down from the Contents sect.
Copyedited those sentences, good point, thanks. :)
Moved the Publication history sect lower down in the article, per above suggestion.
Added a summary intro to the Reception sect.
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)
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:
"It was first published in 2002 by publisher Chronicle Books." So it was published by a publisher? How unusual.
"... commented favorably of the author's excitement". Should be "commented on", not "of".
"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?
"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?
"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"?
"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?
"Cindy Hoedel of The Kansas City Star wrote favorably regarding photography in the book by Sheri Giblin." Yuk!
"... 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.
"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?
"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". MalleusFatuorum 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:
Good point, removed word, "publisher", as this is self-evident here.
Changed to "commented on".
Copyedited sentence, removed "methodology", change to "technique".
Good suggestion, removed word, "replicated", changed to "conveyed".
Thank you for this recommendation, directly implemented the change to: "had contributed to his increased appetite for bacon".
Good point, removed this unnecessary phrasing from the end of the sentence.
I see how this sentence could be improved, and I changed the ordering and copyedited it a bit.
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.
Good point, changed it to, "from reviewers and food critics".
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? MalleusFatuorum 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)
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. MalleusFatuorum 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. MalleusFatuorum 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)
It really doesn't need copy edit. TGilmour (talk) 06:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Update: Malleus and I appear to be making some good faith progress, . Malleus is going to provide some additional specific feedback on my user talk page, and I'll address those suggestions as best I can. :) -- Cirt (talk) 19:38, 19 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)
Really? So you don't see a problem with this kind of thing then? "A review in The Toronto Star was negative, and criticized the Perry's lack of creativity in the recipe selection." MalleusFatuorum 17:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the additional feedback, Malleus Fatuorum, I've made some effort to perform additional copyediting for prose. -- Cirt (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
You might also like to take a look at this: "... yet noted its lack of comprehensiveness and small size of total recipes included". Is that complaining about the size of the recipes or the number of recipes? Basically, despite what anyone else may think, I firmly believe that the prose still needs some work. MalleusFatuorum 18:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Alright, Malleus Fatuorum, I will continue to do some additional copyediting for prose, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 18:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Went through another pass at some more copyediting to further improve the prose. :) -- Cirt (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
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:
Utilized suggested source, The Atlantic, in subsection, Genre.
The genre paragraph still doesn't convince me why this book, this genre, this subject is notable. Maybe I'm missing something, I don't know. The sources I linked above were simply meant to show that more exists on this subject, but I don't have a sense of how much more or why a cookbook about bacon is important Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Striking my oppose and comment here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose - Sorry, but I have to move to oppose, mostly based on the FA policy regarding content. I don't see how this one book is important and quite frankly it feels like a promotional piece. Until content can be added to show that this book is particularly notable within a particularly notable culinary trend, then I have to stick with this. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Notability is not part of WP:WIAFA-- it is determined at WP:AFD. Any article that survives AFD can be a featured article. Opposes here have to be based on WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment: The non-free cover image used is appropriate and in line with the image use policy, as pointed out by Wizardman, above. Based on WP:FACR and other high-quality food and literature Wikipedia articles, the addition of one image in the body of the article would help to better illustrate the subject of the article. While some of us may be quite familiar with the bacon-added-to-food trend, other readers of this article (especially in countries where bacon is not commonly consumed) may not be able to develop a complete understanding of the theme of this book without a relevant photo. Two ideas include:
Take a photo of a dish that was made from a recipe in this book. One solid photograph placed alongside the Content summary section would be ideal, but it could be located elsewhere. For example, the photo of the chili half-smoke at Ben's_Chili_Bowl#Menu is an appropriate and helpful illustration of a menu item at that restaurant.
Take or obtain (with permission for release under a free use license) a photo of the book's author, perhaps at a book signing or other related activity, as shown in Halo:_Contact_Harvest#Background.
If others feel that the recipe photo would be of help, I'd be happy to make a recipe from the book and snap a photo. Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
A recipe photo would be lovely. — Cirt (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - I'm very sorry Cirt, but for such a short article on a minor recipe book to become featured, the prose really has to shine. It doesn't. There is bad grammar, "Recipes from the work have been featured in related cookbooks, and its impact served to increase interest in cooking with bacon." The antecedent for "it's" is "Recipes" not the book. And this sentence is difficult to understand: "Janet F. Keeler of the St. Petersburg Times commented positively on the book's title, and noted the work was covered by food critics, who included its recipes in articles about the subject". In trying to avoid a second use of "book", the sentence has become ambiguous, and what subject, bacon or the the book or its recipes? The whole flow of the prose is choppy, not pleasant to read and not engaging. I can't support this. Graham Colm (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.