Talk:The Experienced English Housekeeper/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 15:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Initial comments

Comments – entirely unconditional so far as GA promotion is concerned, but pray ponder nonetheless:

• For my taste you have overdone the blue linking in the Contents section, but we aren't going to fall out over that.

Cut down.

• The OED has only one T in "combated" (Silly, if you ask me, but there it is.)

Odd, actually, but done anyway.

• Capitalisation: MOS:ALLCAPS is arguably relevant here ("Directions for a GRAND TABLE" etc), but I don't propose so to argue. Be it noted for posterity that the matter has not been overlooked here.

Done the obvious ones.

• "The Oxford English Dictionary of 1888 is said to credit Raffald as one of the earliest sources in English to mention barbecue in cookery" – not wild about your citation as a source, as clicking on the link doesn't get me into it, and, besides, the current OED quotes two mentions of "Barbecu" in William Dampier's A new voyage round the world (1697) and a couple of others earlier than Raffald.

Softened the claim; Dampier of course wasn't a cookery writer.

• "The cookery writer Sophie Grigson wrote in The Independent that her mother made…" – Why not name and link the great and good Jane?

Done.

• Note c: ragout is indeed French, but what about an Italian ragù? Ragoo could refer to either.

Raffald does say in the quote that she has given French names.

I'm not putting the review on hold for such minor matters and will look in again in the next day or two to see how we're getting on. Meanwhile I must go and urgently raid the fridge. – Tim riley talk 15:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Tim, thank you for taking this on. I've responded to your initial comments. I will be offline from tomorrow evening for a week, so patience may be required. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Patience not required. All tickety-boo here for GA. If nobody else bags it I may review your remaining old cook book in your absence. Tim riley talk 22:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)