Talk:English cuisine/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Worm That Turned (talk · contribs) 10:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I've done a fair amount of research on the topic (I think I've written 6 good articles on food topics, at least 4 of which are mentioned in this article!) so I'm probably not in a bad place to do it. Anyway, my review's below, I'm pleased to say it meets the criteria with flying colours. Worm^TT(talk) 12:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

I think Chiswick Chap has done a fine job on this article, a topic which should be considered core to a large encyclopedia. I can tell that Chiswick Chap also has Mrs Beeton's book up for GA review, but since the two topics are so intertwined, I absolutely understand why. My only general comment is that perhaps more should be made of pies, roasts and stews in the stereotype section, pies especially. My own research on English cuisine has shown that pastry is one of the most consistent parts of our diet.

I'll see to it! Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Looking at how the article was laid out in the past, I think that the chronological history followed by the current values is the best way to go. The text is well written, though some of the quotes from historic manuscripts are difficult to follow!
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
Article is well sourced and well referenced with in-line citations. I don't have access to the offline sources to confirm all the facts, but looking into the books, they appear to be of high quality and varied. I'm glad to see a spread of publication dates, going up to 2010, which implies the article is not out of date. I cannot find any evidence of copyright violations (there are a number of copies of the lead on the web already, this shows how profile the article is). My only minor concern is that of original research, for example, the description of the changes to tastes in the 16th century, is largely unsourced. That said, it does match my understanding of culinary history and might be contained in Lehmann, but the way the paragraph is laid out implies that the A.W. facts are attributed to Lehmann, and the rest is not. I wouldn't fail it on this, though it might be worth looking at.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The topic is broad, making focus difficult, though I believe it has managed to stay on topic. I do wonder if combining cafes and tea rooms would stop the single sentence paragraph in the tea room section, which is a touch jarring, but it wouldn't stand in the way of a good article.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
The article is well written, neutrally from an encyclopedic tone. It point out the external influences and the internal ones, and doesn't rely on a single historian's opinion. No issues there.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Stability is not an issue with the article. Reversions appear to be primarily vandalism, there is no edit warring over the information.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Article is beautifully illustrated with some of the best images on the topics.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Without a doubt, this article passes the good article criteria Worm^TT(talk) 11:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]