From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot ( talk) 19:33, 30 November 2017 [1].


Nominator(s): SchroCat ( talk) and Tim riley talk 10:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Elizabeth David was a woman who had an unlikely effect on British culture in the latter half of the twentieth century: through her first six books and numerous articles and essays, she managed to get the British to actually think about what they were eating. In doing so, she revitalised British home cooking, and her legacy is still preached by cooks today. This article has undergone an extensive rewrite and expansion recently, and a well-attended and very productive PR. – SchroCat ( talk) and Tim riley talk 10:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Image review

  • Check caption grammar throughout - centuries used as adjectives should be hyphenated, captions should end in periods when complete sentences and otherwise not, etc.
  • File:Elizabeth-David.jpg: don't use the unique histor ic images tag for this purpose. {{ non-free biog-pic}} would be more appropriate.
  • File:Elizabeth_Gwynne_(David)_1923.jpg needs a US PD tag
  • File:Norman_Douglas.jpg: Commons history indicates this photo has been edited, which would seem inconsistent with the requirements of the licensing tag?
    • It looks as though they are not requirements but requests, and, as the image is in the public domain, presumably unenforceable. More to the point, perhaps, the one here and the original in the Congress Library look the same to me, and the one here is not "colorized or cropped". What think you? Tim riley talk 16:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • File:A_Book_of_Mediterranean_Food_cover.jpg should include a more expansive FUR

While I'm here, I'll also mention that citation formatting needs editing for consistency. Nikkimaria ( talk) 14:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Some examples: many of the citations are written freehand, but then some use templates. 162 and 262 both cite WorldCat, but look quite different. 285 and 289 are both online newspapers, but are ordered differently. Nikkimaria ( talk) 16:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • This is down to me, as SchroCat kindly indulged his senescent collaborator and left my mediaeval system of citations intact. I think I have now (third attempt!) got them all into shape. Thank you – as ever – for your eagle-eye and patient help, Nikkimaria. Tim riley talk 15:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Support per my comments at the peer review, here.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 16:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Thank you, Wehwalt, both for support here and your most helpful input at PR. Tim riley talk 16:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Ditto! Many thanks Wehwalt. - SchroCat ( talk) 18:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Comments by Dudley

  • "According to an interview with Chaney" It is obviously David speaking, but you should say so.
  • "Tony David proved ineffectual in civilian life, unable to find a suitable job, and ran up debts, partly from a failed business venture." This does not look right to me grammatically.
  • "and to put distance between her and her husband" I would say "herself" rather than her.
  • "In 1977 David was badly injured in a car accident" I think a sentence giving more information about the accident would be helpful.
Thank you for these, Dudley. Looking forward to any further thoughts you may have on the piece. Tim riley talk 09:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • "There have been many flashings of neon in the postwar food firmament, but there is only one star. Her name is Elizabeth David." I doubt the value of this quote from 1970. One on her role in improving cooking would be good (or even English life as with the Auberon Waugh comment), but not a near 50 year old claim that she is the only star.
  • "Janet Floyd, the professor of American Literature, identifies that David" I find the word "identifies" jarring in this context. "points out" or "argues" would be better.
  • "The message of "real food"," The source does not use the pretentious term "real food".
  • This is a very interesting and well written article. Dudley Miles ( talk) 15:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I add my thanks to SchroCat's for your comments and support. Much obliged, sir! Tim riley talk 16:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Support by Edwininlondon

Very nice piece of work. I had never heard of her, and although initially I found the personal life bits a bit questionable, but gradually I got to see why those bits are there. The prose is of enviable quality. Very few things to question:

Again, a remarkable effort. Edwininlondon ( talk) 18:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Support from Brianboulton

I peer-reviewed this article twice: a detailed review in 2011 when I was young, and a briefer version a couple of weeks ago, when I found little of substance to quarrel with. I did raise a slight caveat about possible over-detailing, but no one else has echoed this concern. I agree that the general quality of the prose is excellent, and the presentation superb. So no further quibbles from me (except, see sources review below). Brianboulton ( talk) 16:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Thank you so much for both reviews, Brian, and for your support here. I have pruned the books section a little, following your comments at the second PR. Tim riley talk 22:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Echoing my thanks, too, for your thoughts at PR and here. They are much appreciated, as always. Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 05:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Sources review

  • General point re online newspaper sources: when the source is a website rather than the paper itself, you need to add a retrieval date. You have done this with, e.g. 283, 287 and 288, but not 33, 77, 120, 133, 182, 189. 193, 227, 249, 255, 262, 273, 275 (list may not be exhaustive)
    • I don't know what the source is for that alleged requirement. I've been away from WP, it's true, but this is certainly a new one on me. For verification purposes the date of publication in whatever medium is all that is required as far as I can see, and I can't think what extra value is added by saying when I looked at it. Though I suppose if we've done it for some we might as well do it for all. I'll wield the clipboard accordingly. Tim riley talk 22:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Tim, I think I've caught all these, but could you cast your eye over to make sure I've not missed any? - SchroCat ( talk) 09:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Ref 63: The source is "Imperial War Museums" (plural)
  • Ref 120: the article is from The Observer, not The Guardian
  • Ref 158: Wrong WorldCat link
  • Ref 187: The title is "The Cult of Elizabeth David" – and retrieval date required.

Otherwise, all sources are of appropriate quality, and are impeccably presented. Brianboulton ( talk) 16:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Thank you very much, BB, my querulous comment notwithstanding. These points will be dealt with by SchroCat (who is ahead of me, I see) and self. Tim riley talk 22:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Many thanks Brian. - SchroCat ( talk) 05:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Concerning retrieval dates. I think the argument is that the online version of a newspaper/journal article is generally a transcribed version, and may not be identical to its printed original. If the article can be accessed in its original format (as with Proquest), then the need for retrieval dates does not apply. Brianboulton ( talk) 10:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Support from KJP1

I can't match Brian's double Peer Review, but I did nit-pick my way through the second and I've really nothing further to query or quibble over here. It is a superb, collaborative, piece of work. I knew of David, but nothing in detail of her life and impact. The article presents all of this beautifully, and it's undoubtedly one of the best Wikipedia has to offer, fully meriting Featured status. KJP1 ( talk) 06:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

KJP1, thank you for that. She was quite a gal, wasn't she? So glad you enjoyed the article, and your support is most gratefully received. Tim riley talk 17:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Many thanks for your thoughts at PR and here KJP1 - all very much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 18:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Support by William_Avery

Speaking as one who can be quite picky about prose, I found this a pleasure to read.

One possible addition has occurred to me since I commented in the last peer review, which is that the auction of the subject's kitchen effects brought unexpectedly high prices, with at least one notable buyer, and was widely reported at the time. However, I'm not sure it's covered in good enough sources; but I'll put some links here anyway.

William Avery ( talk) 00:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Thank you very much for this support, and for your input at the peer review. The auction is covered in detail in the Chaney biography. Having divided up the sections between us when we started overhauling the article, I'll defer to my co-conspirator SchroCat on whether to add details, and if so what. Tim riley talk 12:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Many thanks William Avery; I've added a small sentence or two at the end of "Later years", which should cover the important points. Thanks also for your thoughts at PR. Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 16:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Support from Jim

Comprehensive and a great read, agree totally regarding garlic presses and shop bread. Just a couple of quibbles you are free to ignore

  • ancestor on her father's side, also Dutch and Sumatran seems too vague. I could probably describe myself as a Viking on that basis
    • To be honest this is a sop to a previous editor who made a production number of her ancestry, which I have reduced to the present wording. I wouldn't mind making it smaller still, but discretion is the better part of valour here. Tim riley talk 19:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Maybe link the now-defunct Yugoslavia?
  • Why "funghi" spelling? You are not quoting as far as I can see, so I'd expect English sp?
  • Why are regions of France (Corsica) and Italy (Sicily) linked, but not US states (California)?
    • Fair point. Shall link.

Cheers, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply

And cheers, not to mention warmest thanks, to you Jim for comments and support. (I'm not sure I agree with you and Mrs David about garlic presses, but please keep this to yourself.) Tim riley talk 19:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Many thanks Jim – I'm much obliged to you. (I agree with you and her about shop bread, which is why I bake my own, but was shocked when I found out she preferred instant coffee to real coffee). - SchroCat ( talk) 19:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I'm happy with all the changes, although "mushroom" comes to mind as an edible fungus possibility. (Off topic) I acquired some blewits recently, delicious with a cream and brandy sauce on toast (home-made bread of course) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Support from Chiswick Chap

I haven't much to add to the careful comments above, having already said most of what I might have said at Peer Review. It's a fine article. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 19:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Thank you so much, CC, for your input here, at PR and throughout the article. Tim riley talk 20:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Support from Ssven2

Good to see you two stalwarts back in the midst of things after a while. A very interesting and pleasant read. My only query is that you can archive all the references (URLs that is) to avoid any dead links.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 15:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot ( talk) 19:33, 30 November 2017 [1].


Nominator(s): SchroCat ( talk) and Tim riley talk 10:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Elizabeth David was a woman who had an unlikely effect on British culture in the latter half of the twentieth century: through her first six books and numerous articles and essays, she managed to get the British to actually think about what they were eating. In doing so, she revitalised British home cooking, and her legacy is still preached by cooks today. This article has undergone an extensive rewrite and expansion recently, and a well-attended and very productive PR. – SchroCat ( talk) and Tim riley talk 10:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Image review

  • Check caption grammar throughout - centuries used as adjectives should be hyphenated, captions should end in periods when complete sentences and otherwise not, etc.
  • File:Elizabeth-David.jpg: don't use the unique histor ic images tag for this purpose. {{ non-free biog-pic}} would be more appropriate.
  • File:Elizabeth_Gwynne_(David)_1923.jpg needs a US PD tag
  • File:Norman_Douglas.jpg: Commons history indicates this photo has been edited, which would seem inconsistent with the requirements of the licensing tag?
    • It looks as though they are not requirements but requests, and, as the image is in the public domain, presumably unenforceable. More to the point, perhaps, the one here and the original in the Congress Library look the same to me, and the one here is not "colorized or cropped". What think you? Tim riley talk 16:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • File:A_Book_of_Mediterranean_Food_cover.jpg should include a more expansive FUR

While I'm here, I'll also mention that citation formatting needs editing for consistency. Nikkimaria ( talk) 14:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Some examples: many of the citations are written freehand, but then some use templates. 162 and 262 both cite WorldCat, but look quite different. 285 and 289 are both online newspapers, but are ordered differently. Nikkimaria ( talk) 16:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • This is down to me, as SchroCat kindly indulged his senescent collaborator and left my mediaeval system of citations intact. I think I have now (third attempt!) got them all into shape. Thank you – as ever – for your eagle-eye and patient help, Nikkimaria. Tim riley talk 15:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Support per my comments at the peer review, here.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 16:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Thank you, Wehwalt, both for support here and your most helpful input at PR. Tim riley talk 16:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Ditto! Many thanks Wehwalt. - SchroCat ( talk) 18:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Comments by Dudley

  • "According to an interview with Chaney" It is obviously David speaking, but you should say so.
  • "Tony David proved ineffectual in civilian life, unable to find a suitable job, and ran up debts, partly from a failed business venture." This does not look right to me grammatically.
  • "and to put distance between her and her husband" I would say "herself" rather than her.
  • "In 1977 David was badly injured in a car accident" I think a sentence giving more information about the accident would be helpful.
Thank you for these, Dudley. Looking forward to any further thoughts you may have on the piece. Tim riley talk 09:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • "There have been many flashings of neon in the postwar food firmament, but there is only one star. Her name is Elizabeth David." I doubt the value of this quote from 1970. One on her role in improving cooking would be good (or even English life as with the Auberon Waugh comment), but not a near 50 year old claim that she is the only star.
  • "Janet Floyd, the professor of American Literature, identifies that David" I find the word "identifies" jarring in this context. "points out" or "argues" would be better.
  • "The message of "real food"," The source does not use the pretentious term "real food".
  • This is a very interesting and well written article. Dudley Miles ( talk) 15:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I add my thanks to SchroCat's for your comments and support. Much obliged, sir! Tim riley talk 16:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Support by Edwininlondon

Very nice piece of work. I had never heard of her, and although initially I found the personal life bits a bit questionable, but gradually I got to see why those bits are there. The prose is of enviable quality. Very few things to question:

Again, a remarkable effort. Edwininlondon ( talk) 18:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Support from Brianboulton

I peer-reviewed this article twice: a detailed review in 2011 when I was young, and a briefer version a couple of weeks ago, when I found little of substance to quarrel with. I did raise a slight caveat about possible over-detailing, but no one else has echoed this concern. I agree that the general quality of the prose is excellent, and the presentation superb. So no further quibbles from me (except, see sources review below). Brianboulton ( talk) 16:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Thank you so much for both reviews, Brian, and for your support here. I have pruned the books section a little, following your comments at the second PR. Tim riley talk 22:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Echoing my thanks, too, for your thoughts at PR and here. They are much appreciated, as always. Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 05:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Sources review

  • General point re online newspaper sources: when the source is a website rather than the paper itself, you need to add a retrieval date. You have done this with, e.g. 283, 287 and 288, but not 33, 77, 120, 133, 182, 189. 193, 227, 249, 255, 262, 273, 275 (list may not be exhaustive)
    • I don't know what the source is for that alleged requirement. I've been away from WP, it's true, but this is certainly a new one on me. For verification purposes the date of publication in whatever medium is all that is required as far as I can see, and I can't think what extra value is added by saying when I looked at it. Though I suppose if we've done it for some we might as well do it for all. I'll wield the clipboard accordingly. Tim riley talk 22:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Tim, I think I've caught all these, but could you cast your eye over to make sure I've not missed any? - SchroCat ( talk) 09:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Ref 63: The source is "Imperial War Museums" (plural)
  • Ref 120: the article is from The Observer, not The Guardian
  • Ref 158: Wrong WorldCat link
  • Ref 187: The title is "The Cult of Elizabeth David" – and retrieval date required.

Otherwise, all sources are of appropriate quality, and are impeccably presented. Brianboulton ( talk) 16:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Thank you very much, BB, my querulous comment notwithstanding. These points will be dealt with by SchroCat (who is ahead of me, I see) and self. Tim riley talk 22:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Many thanks Brian. - SchroCat ( talk) 05:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Concerning retrieval dates. I think the argument is that the online version of a newspaper/journal article is generally a transcribed version, and may not be identical to its printed original. If the article can be accessed in its original format (as with Proquest), then the need for retrieval dates does not apply. Brianboulton ( talk) 10:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Support from KJP1

I can't match Brian's double Peer Review, but I did nit-pick my way through the second and I've really nothing further to query or quibble over here. It is a superb, collaborative, piece of work. I knew of David, but nothing in detail of her life and impact. The article presents all of this beautifully, and it's undoubtedly one of the best Wikipedia has to offer, fully meriting Featured status. KJP1 ( talk) 06:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

KJP1, thank you for that. She was quite a gal, wasn't she? So glad you enjoyed the article, and your support is most gratefully received. Tim riley talk 17:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Many thanks for your thoughts at PR and here KJP1 - all very much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 18:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Support by William_Avery

Speaking as one who can be quite picky about prose, I found this a pleasure to read.

One possible addition has occurred to me since I commented in the last peer review, which is that the auction of the subject's kitchen effects brought unexpectedly high prices, with at least one notable buyer, and was widely reported at the time. However, I'm not sure it's covered in good enough sources; but I'll put some links here anyway.

William Avery ( talk) 00:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Thank you very much for this support, and for your input at the peer review. The auction is covered in detail in the Chaney biography. Having divided up the sections between us when we started overhauling the article, I'll defer to my co-conspirator SchroCat on whether to add details, and if so what. Tim riley talk 12:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Many thanks William Avery; I've added a small sentence or two at the end of "Later years", which should cover the important points. Thanks also for your thoughts at PR. Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 16:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Support from Jim

Comprehensive and a great read, agree totally regarding garlic presses and shop bread. Just a couple of quibbles you are free to ignore

  • ancestor on her father's side, also Dutch and Sumatran seems too vague. I could probably describe myself as a Viking on that basis
    • To be honest this is a sop to a previous editor who made a production number of her ancestry, which I have reduced to the present wording. I wouldn't mind making it smaller still, but discretion is the better part of valour here. Tim riley talk 19:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Maybe link the now-defunct Yugoslavia?
  • Why "funghi" spelling? You are not quoting as far as I can see, so I'd expect English sp?
  • Why are regions of France (Corsica) and Italy (Sicily) linked, but not US states (California)?
    • Fair point. Shall link.

Cheers, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply

And cheers, not to mention warmest thanks, to you Jim for comments and support. (I'm not sure I agree with you and Mrs David about garlic presses, but please keep this to yourself.) Tim riley talk 19:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Many thanks Jim – I'm much obliged to you. (I agree with you and her about shop bread, which is why I bake my own, but was shocked when I found out she preferred instant coffee to real coffee). - SchroCat ( talk) 19:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I'm happy with all the changes, although "mushroom" comes to mind as an edible fungus possibility. (Off topic) I acquired some blewits recently, delicious with a cream and brandy sauce on toast (home-made bread of course) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Support from Chiswick Chap

I haven't much to add to the careful comments above, having already said most of what I might have said at Peer Review. It's a fine article. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 19:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Thank you so much, CC, for your input here, at PR and throughout the article. Tim riley talk 20:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Support from Ssven2

Good to see you two stalwarts back in the midst of things after a while. A very interesting and pleasant read. My only query is that you can archive all the references (URLs that is) to avoid any dead links.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 15:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook