Talk:Angels on horseback/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 18:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to offer a review, so long as you know that I haven't eaten meat in years! J Milburn (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't eat bacon either. Though the article was missing a fair amount of details required for GA that I decided to fix up. Once cleaned up, it seems to have hit upon all the details needed. Also, the entire topic area is something I want to see at GA and this food - obscure and rare - is pretty well-covered, but its at the risk of (if not already) becoming synonymous with "Devils on horseback". It only gets about 33,200 views a year, but its still important. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, do you have a source for the fact they can be a savoury? It's mentioned in the lead, but not elsewhere. Or is it sourced to Palmatier?

Made a new section for that. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this article, you seem to differentiate between hors d'œuvre and appetizer, but the links go to the same article

Goes to show how poorly food articles are covered on Wikipedia! I don't have much time to address that right now, but appetizer is all encompassing and hors d'œuvre is more singular and specific. Averted by fixing the prose. ChrisGualtieri (talk)

"The appetizer has had limited popularity in the United States, but has become regarded as a luxury or delicacy due to the elevated status of oysters in North America." I'm wondering why you jump into talking about the US, despite the fact this is apparently a British dish?

It has had more popularity in the U.S. Though I will fix it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What does "dry heat" mean? Do you cook on, in or with a dry heat? How about "cooking using a dry heat method"?
Angels or angels? Horseback or horseback?

I'll standardize all to "angels on horseback" as most commonly referenced. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Angels on horseback is similar to the dish devils on horseback, including being listed a synonym." This doesn't make sense

Fixed.

"Though the dish is English in origin" England or Anglosphere? The first reference you cite is Australian.

England, fixed.

"While sometimes referred to as a traditional English dish, the dish has its Irish fans also: most recently, they featured as part of the menu that won Danny Millar the Irish regional crown in the Great British Menu challenge.[7]" I'm not sure what the significance of this is; was Millar keen to present this as an Irish dish?
"The earliest occurrence cited in the Dictionary of American Regional English is from 1909.[12]" So what?

Removed.

"In the 1950s, a number of articles appear in American papers, the titles of which suggest that the dish is little known: "For Oyster Treat, Try Angels on Horseback: They're Delectable Appetizer Sunday Menu";[15] "Angels on Horseback, English Monkey? Those Are Recipes!";[16] and "These Angels on Horseback Are Oysters".[17]" This is a little bit OR-y, but I'm happy enough to let it slide.

Worked that out.

Again, this feels very Americanised. When this apparently an English (or perhaps Australian) dish, the history section focuses on the history of the food in the US.

I'll balance it.

""Angels on Horseback" is also the name of a 1977 episode of the 1970s American TV show Charlie's Angels. Nurses working for the Frontier Nursing Service who served remote areas of Kentucky also bore the name. It is also the title of a 1957 collection by English cartoonist Norman Thelwell.[29]" Unless any of these things are named after the food, this does not belong in the article (perhaps beyond a hatnote).

Removed.

Seeing as devils on horseback is a synonym and the dish is very similar, I really think the article on DOH should be merged into this one. Another paragraph explaining the difference in the preparation section would likely do that dish justice; perhaps a mention in the history section.

While it has moved in that direction, it is not really "there", and I'll gladly add some international variations, but "devils on horseback" while close in name is distinctly different. If not for possible food allergy reasons, these articles should not be merged. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Gourmet's Guide (footnote 28) is a book- you should change the formatting of that reference. The formatting on some of the others is a bit lacking (missing ISBNs, for instance) but that's not the end of the world.

The sources generally look appropriate, the image is fine, but I do think a caption noting the non-standard preparation would be useful. J Milburn (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get right on it. Give me a bit of time. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Working on resolving the issues now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I did some more fixing to resolve the issues. The "devils on horseback" matter is distinctly separate, though error in usage has occurred. The modern and indeed, distinctly unique evolution of devils on horseback has resulted in a somewhat magical dish that is on the cutting edge of being itself a new culinary evolution. I've addressed this matter and dealt with the issues - if Martha Stewart and Martin Blunos do not confuse the dishes, then it is fair to say that those that do are in the minority. So, take a look and hopefully it will be all set. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely some good improvements, here; a few thoughts:

The opening lines don't quite grab me as much as they should. Perhaps the three different meals for which they can be used should be in the same sentence?

You mean two? In that case, done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Angels on horseback has" Have?

Done Its plural regardless, so I switched to to Have. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mention devils on horseback in the lead twice, and "Angels on horseback is similar to the dish devils on horseback, including being listed a synonym" doesn't make sense

They are confused with one another at times... resulting in the two dishes being used as synonyms. What is wrong with that explanation? It is very clear to me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, as the picture shows atypical preparation, could you perhaps add a caption explaining this?

Done

What does "formally canapés" mean?

Removed formally. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Savory or savoury? You need to decide what version of English you are using.

Fixed, with the exception of the book title which used "Savory". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Numerous cookbooks have included the recipe as a savoury, including the 1905 cookbook, Savouries Simplified.[4]" One is not numerous.

Was an example. Several others are already listed... how many do I need to put in to count "numerous"? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Three would be good. J Milburn (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Though the Ayto's books, The Diner's Dictionary: Word Origins of Food and Drink and A Gourmet's Guide: Food and Drink from A to Z note the differences, does recognize the two dishes have often been used a synonym for each other." I've no idea what this means

I'm sorry... but why is this confusing? I am at a loss to why this line is problematic... the fact they are often used as synonyms seems clear. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear what "the Ayto's books" means (books which belong to "the Ayto"? Is that John Ayto's wrestling name?), "does recognize" is unclear (shouldn't it be "they do recognize"?) and dishes cannot be synonyms each other- names of dishes are synonyms. If I understand correctly what you are trying to say, how about changing the sentence to "Food writer John Ayto, though acknowledging that the dishes differ, notes that the names are sometimes considered synonymous." (If he says it's incorrect, you could add "incorrectly").

"Though the dish is originates from England, the name most likely ofrom the French anges à cheval; its first occurrence, according to the Oxford English Dictionary and other sources, is in 1888, in Mrs Beeton's Book of Household Management.[9][10] However, there is a reference in an Australian newspaper to the dish, which includes a brief recipe, from 1882.[11]" Could we please say who claims that the dish is English in origin? The claim is somewhat undermined by your reference to an earlier Australian article.

In my searches I see one claimant from Prussia sourced to an unreliable source, but I do keep seeing the dish as "classic English" an "English dish" and such, but the origin term is not ever sourced reliably. So I've removed it.

If the OED considers that the words origin, I think it's a useful addition to the article, even if we may suspect it's wrong. J Milburn (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Angels on horseback are also served in the United States, where the dish never seems to have become as well known as in its country of origin." There's still an issue here. If it never became well-known in the US, why is most of the history section about the US?

I removed the matter about popularity. This seems to be an artifact I didn't address properly.

Is Evangeline Bruce worth a link?

As it is currently a redlink... I'm going to say no at this time. Updating with a retro-search is easy enough.

"This is then baked in the oven, about three minutes per side,[26] such as broiling." I don't follow.

Plain broiling. Baking is a source of dry heat, but you want this on the broil setting.

The phrase "baked in the oven such as broiling" doesn't make any sense. Are you meaning to say that broiling is one way that it could be cooked in the oven? If so, perhaps you could say "This is then baked in the oven, sometimes by broiling, for about three minutes per side." However, I'm not convinced that broiling is a way something can be "baked in the oven", so I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. J Milburn (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a rather arbitrary line you've drawn between the main recipe and variations.

Removed.

Why the category of Christmas food?

Good question... I removed it.

Still not ready for GA status, though it's certainly starting to take shape. J Milburn (talk) 14:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All issues except that "synonym" matter should be resolved. I don't understand why this is causing an issue... the definition of a synonym in both culinary and taxonomic definitions are the same. The definition even states: "a word that has the same meaning as another word in the same language" - Its not elegant to say: "Angels on horseback is a dish which has been used by some under the name devils on horseback, though devils on horseback is a different dish than angels on horseback, the two different names for the dish are occasionally used interchangeably." - would be a more wordy and basic definition. I prefer to state that the two dishes are erroneously referred to as synonyms of one another. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's all well and good, but the phrasing doesn't make any sense. "Angels on horseback is similar to the dish devils on horseback, including being listed a synonym" - Foods cannot be synonyms of each other, but names of foods can be synonyms. How about "Angels on horseback are similar to devils on horseback, and the two names are sometimes erroneously considered synonyms"? (I'll take a look through your other responses soon.) J Milburn (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed it per your suggestion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've had a play around, including knocking up an article for Constance Peel. In all, I reckon that this is just about ready, so I'm going to go ahead and promote. J Milburn (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]