Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hannah Glasse/archive1

Add links
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 6 May 2019 [1].

Hannah Glasse[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 06:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Glasse is an interesting figure in English culinary history. Although she copied some of the recipes in her book (as did every other writer of the time), she checked most of them, updating, changing and improving the recipes as she did so. She didn't have an easy life, and eventually had to sell the rights to her book to cover her debts. This has been rewritten recently, with additional sources and coverage. Any and all comments in good faith are welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 06:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iridescent[edit]

I've not checked sources or images. This version is the version reviewed.

Lead[edit]
  • I can see why you've used the title page with the signature—it's more interesting than a dusty cover—but prepare for someone to complain. (I assume that the first edition was leather-bound and didn't have a "cover design" as such.)
  • This is a preference rather than anything stronger, but I think you should include how her name was pronounced (assuming we know), since I can think of at least three different and plausible ways to pronounce "Glasse".
  • I'm unsure on this: I'll see what I can find out. - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • best-selling volume of its type—is the type cookbooks in particular, or how-to books in general?
  • Maybe a stupid query—and not directly relevant to this article—but why were the Marquess of Donegal's estates in Essex rather than Donegal?
  • Again, something I'll check on, just to make sure I've reflected the sources adequately - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all their estates were in Essex. The first Earl was a Devonian (where the family had estates) and in 1641 he put down an rebellion in Ulster for which he was made the Earl of Donegall. I can't find any other references to Essex on the other Earls, but the several sources are adamant that the 4th Earl was living in Broomfield. - SchroCat (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her books were plagiarised for others is a bit jarring to me, as on first skim I read that as a misprint of "plagiarised by others". Maybe something like "other authors plagiarised her writing"?
Biography[edit]
  • The first paragraph has a definite surfeit of Hannahs and it's not clear who was who. I think what's being said is Isaac had a wife called Hannah with whom he had a child named Lancelot, and a mistress who was also called Hannah, with whom he had a child who was also called Hannah, but it's definitely not clear.
  • Tweaked a little: is that any clearer? - SchroCat (talk) 14:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe (but haven't changed it in case I'm wrong) that you've confused the DNB and ODNB.
  • Indeed I have (I'm very easily confused, as you've probably noticed). - SchroCat (talk) 14:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although her family were angered when they found out, cordial relations soon resumed—up to this point, there don't appear to have been any cordial relations with her family. All we've heard of them thus far is that her mother is dead, her father is a philandering wastrel, and her grandmother has forbidden her from socialising.
  • Agreed this may seem odd, but it's what the source tells us: Hannah wrote to her aunt apologizing for the secrecy but not for the marriage. Friendly exchange of letters recommenced between Hannah and the Allgoods in 1728 is from the ODNB. Although her father was a PW, it seems (reading between the lines) they sort of got on - and she did with her half-brother, as he visited her in London later in life. - SchroCat (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Earl of Donegal or Marquess of Donegall? The title (and the spelling of Donegal/l) is inconsistent with the lead.
  • Earls of Donegall was the right title until the 1790s - now corrected both refs. - SchroCat (talk) 14:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the family were always broke, do we have any idea how they managed to send the kids to the two most expensive schools in the country?
  • Possibly because they did send their sons there! Sadly the sources aren't clear on this. We know she had her "an annual income and a sum of capital" (as we say in the second para), but how it was spent, or her levels of income/outgoings aren't clarified anywhere. - SchroCat (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article contains illustrations from later editions of the book; were they there in the original, or were they later additions? Did she draw them herself?
  • There is nothing specifically about the illustrations in the RS. My original research shows nothing up to the fifth edition (which was the one she sold the copyright on). So any illustrations were later than that and she would (probably) have had no hand in them at all. I'm going back over the sources to see if I can find even a trace of something I can use, but no dice so far. - SchroCat (talk) 10:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that she had "so many coaches at her door", the patronage of the royals etc, have we any idea how she racked up £10,000 in debts?
  • None that I have found. The sources on her life are a bit scant. This is what one or two historians have pieced together from trade directories, London Gazette, etc, rather than any contemporary biography or account. - SchroCat (talk) 19:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cook had been in a feud with Allgood—Isaac or Lancelot? Neither the text nor the footnote makes it clear which Allgood we're talking about here.
Books[edit]
  • 150 years before the introduction of the Oxo brand bouillon cube; firstly, the Americanism of "bouillon cube" is jarring to me; secondly, why single out Oxo cubes? Lemco were making beef stock in Britain decades before the Oxo cube came along.
  • Did "A Certain Cure for the Bite of a Mad Dog" and a "Receipt against the Plague" work? I know we're slipping into WP:MEDRS territory if we give specifics, but I imagine readers would be interested to know.
  • I've not found anything more than a passing reference to the existence of these 'recipes'. I've gone over some plague literature in the search, but nothing came up that I could find. - SchroCat (talk) 12:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy[edit]
  • If her signature appeared in the front and all editions from the fifth edition onwards bore her name, how was her identity as the author lost?
  • It was printed in the US in 1805 and was popular in Williamsburg, Virginia—is there any particular significance to Williamsburg? This seems to me to be a 19th-century US equivalent of "it was sold in the UK and was popular in Macclesfield".

All very minor nitpicks, quibbles and "not how I'd have done it"s rather than actual issues, and nothing to preclude support. ‑ Iridescent 20:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks indeed, Iri. I'm much indebted to you and will enjoy going through these shortly. (Unfortunately the sunny day and my missus with a list of DIY jobs to do gets in the way first!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, add another one: the article says Glasse departs from many of her predecessors and does not provide a section of medical advice (and she makes the same claim), but on actually leafing through the book she doesn't seem to have been able to resist—e.g. virtually everything on these two pages. The instructions for making "artificial asses milk" from crushed snails, ginger and hartshorn definitely raise more questions than they answer. ‑ Iridescent 15:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a little extra on this. No so much medicine, but "nutritious food for invalids", as Eliza Acton once called it. Thanks once again, and I think I've done the best I can with your comments. The sources are annoyingly thin on Glasse, unfortunately. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Nick-D[edit]

It's great to see this article on an under-represented topic at FAC. I have the following comments:

  • "and The Compleat Confectioner, which was published undated, but probably in 1760" - probably too many commas here and a bit complex for the lead - I'd suggest "and The Compleat Confectioner, which was probably published in 1760"
  • "respectable family" - what's a "respectable family" in this context? (we don't want to endorse 18th century norms, necessarily). Should this be "respected family"?
  • Do we know what Glasse's background as a cook and/or lady of the house managing cooks was? This would be helpful in explaining how she came to write a successful cook book, which is unclear at present. Nick-D (talk) 05:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely nothing! It is, I suppose, possible that while her husband worked as an estate steward for the Earl of Donegall, she would have been employed in some way in the house, but I can't find anything to suggest that in the sources. I'm still going over them to find something for Iri's review, so I'll bear this point in mind while searching. - SchroCat (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Nick. Your first two points done, the third one less straightforward, but I'll keep looking. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM[edit]

A brilliant topic that I'm very happy to see here. I'm sure I'll learn something interesting.

  • "best-selling recipe book that century" In the UK? Europe? The world?
  • The claim is made by several sources, but none of them clarify the geography involved. - SchroCat (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She copied extensively from other cookery books, and around a third of the recipes are from other books." To avoid repetition, can I suggest something like: "She copied extensively from other cookery books, with around a third of the recipes originally published elsewhere."
  • "providing Glasse with an annual income and a sum of capital" Is it appropriate to call her "Glass", here, given that this wasn't her name at the time? Same in the next paragraph.
  • Yes, no, maybe..! I have had extensive grief from one or two individuals about the naming of subjects. I think we're OK to use the "name best known by" throughout the article, regardless of her maiden name, but if there is some guidance from MoS or similar that suggests otherwise, I'm happy to change it. - SchroCat (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As was the practice for publishers at the time, Glasse had to provide the names of subscribers—those who had pre-paid for a copy—who were listed inside the work; 202 were listed at the front of the first edition; that number increased for the second and third editions." Could I recommend splitting this sentence?
  • Who was the author of The Whole Duty of a Woman?
  • "A Lady" is all that has been identified (as far as I am aware). I've added something appropriate. - SchroCat (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "recipes were not covered against copyright" Is against the right word here?
  • "£10,000 in 1754 equates to around £1,490,000" In what year? 2019?
  • Oops - now added the CURRENTYEAR template. - SchroCat (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There are other possible dates for the publication, including 1760[54] and 1762.[55]" 1760 isn't another date - it's the one mentioned in the prose
  • "Information about Glasse's identity was lost for years." I feel this is something that might belong in the lead!
  • You refer to "Stead" before you've introduced her; perhaps it would be useful to mention who she and Bain are? (Historians? Food writers?)
  • You refer to "the 1971 reprint", but haven't actually mentioned it. Until that point, I'd guessed that the first 20th century publication had been in 1983.

I really enjoyed reading this. I even chuckled. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Josh, I'm much obliged to you, and glad you enjoyed reading it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose, but this is a new topic to me, so I may have missed something. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley[edit]

The (very minor) points I raised at the peer review were all attended to then, and I have struggled to find anything more to quibble at.

  • In the penultimate paragraph of the article "The 310th anniversary of Hannah Glasse's birthday" might possibly be better as "The 310th anniversary of Hannah Glasse's birth", given the strange quirk of the English Language that one's birthday is not the day of one's birth but the first and subsequent anniversaries of it.
  • I wonder why you have singled out "confectionary", "pye" and "tye" for a sic each, when you (rightly in my view) allow "compleat", "gellies", "oeconomy", "expence" etc to escape sic-ing.
  • In the Sources, if you feel the reader needs to know that Stroud is in Gloucs, Totness in Devon and Abingdon in Oxon perhaps a similar geographical aide memoire would be appropriate for Harmondsworth.
  • Not strictly to do with this review, but this is a convenient place to mention that I think the wizards at the Photography workshop might well be able to improve the three very yellowed scans from the 1828 book if you ask them.

The article meets all the FA criteria in my view, and was a pleasure to reread for this review. – Tim riley talk 08:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Tim: I am very much obliged for your double-duty on this. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley, disambiguating "Harmondsworth" isn't as simple as Stroud, Abingdon etc. Harmondsworth (better known to the rest of the world by the name of its former outlying hamlet Heathrow) got batted around between different local authorities quite regularly in the 20th century. "Middlesex", its traditional county, would be misleading as by the point this book was published the last vestiges of Middx had been dissolved, "London" would be true but misleading as the urban sprawl hadn't reached it yet even though it had been redistricted into Greater London in 1965, while "Hillingdon"—technically the local authority that covers it—is also misleading as Harmondsworth is at the extreme opposite end of Hillingdon Borough from Hillingdon Town. Penguin have finally abandoned the pretension of trying to pretend they're not in London, but this has always been a problem with referencing their earlier publications and there's no clear right answer. Rather than scrabbling around with some kind of "formerly Middlesex but now technically within the boundaries of London albeit geographically separated and with its own cultural identity" formula it would likely make more sense to just like Harmondsworth. ‑ Iridescent 08:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One solution would be replacing all of them with "England" or "United Kingdom". Josh Milburn (talk) 10:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, what practical help is it to readers to say where a book was published? With the year and ISBN/OCLC the book is pinned down unambiguously, and it isn't all that ad rem where the publisher's offices were. Heresy? – Tim riley talk 17:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's an argument I've seen before and, indeed, I have sympathy for it. Including an ISBN/OCLC does exactly that, but I have seen some people argue against the inclusion of ISBN/OCLC, which seems to be problematic to me. - SchroCat (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jim[edit]

I'd read about Glasse, so great to see this. A couple of points you may wish to consider

  • subaltern on half-pay perhaps subaltern then on half-pay or similar, assuming it wasn't a permanent state of affairs
  • Although Glasse was banned from attending social events by her grandmother I visit Kenwood House when ever I can, and I'm aware that a former interesting resident Dido Elizabeth Belle couldn't attend formal family functions, not because of her mixed race or slave ancestry, but because she was illegitimate. Do we know if that's the reason for Gran's ban?
Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Jim. Yes to your first point (now amended) and no to the second. Unfortunately real information about Glasse has proved scant, and the sources just don't cover most of the information I'd like to have included (skim through the responses to the reviewers above and it's the same litany of "not in the sources"). All very annoying, but hopefully some historian will get lucky at some point in future and fin something we can use. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty much the answer I was expecting, thanks anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me?

Support from SN54129[edit]

Looking good. Some—gulp!—tasty fare on offer  :)

  • Talking of tasty fare, does Glasse have recipes for sandwiches? Just wondering, as you've got a little MOS:SANDWICH poking in the TAoC section; I think this can be resolved by moving some of the later images down a piece, as they don't seem specific to their sections? (For example.)
  • Well the curry recipe is next to the mention of Glasse's use of the recipe. It's only three lines on a wide screen, so it's not too much of a problem I think (I only tend to bother when it looks bad on narrower screens or when it's a significant chunk of text sandwiched). - SchroCat (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note b) "the first published date"; sounds odd, and seems to beg a hyphen. "Date of first publication"?
  • Note g) "based on Consumer Price Index"; "based on the Consumer Price Index"—or even "based on the Consumer Price Index's".
  • Ah! Avoiding TR and his false titles I see  ;) "described by the historian Madeleine...and by the historian Gilly". Repetition, though?
  • "...Half the trade know this."—inline citation, as it's a little abandoned atm.7
  • Talking of false titles, who's Wendy Hall?
  • As we put her in context by linking her with her study, we can avoid more of "the historian" - SchroCat (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(now sometimes called Welsh rarebit)"—h'mmm; could this be recast? "Later known as..."? After all, when is "now"...
  • First mention of Fench cooking, link French cuisine.
  • Any reason Robb-Smith's ODNB piece is referenced under "Journals" rather than "Books"? (Or "Internet", if you like)
  • Should probably still link His Nibs of Donegall; since that's the only redlink in his line, the odds on him having an article at some point seem more favourable than otherwise.
That worked up an appetite. Anyone gotta Pêche Blair?! ;) Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 17:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cheers SN. Caught them all, except where I've commented otherwise. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cassianto[edit]

With a few quibbles:

Early life

  • "Allgood's wife died in 1724 and he fell ill; Glasse was sent to live with her grandmother." → "Soon after the death of his wife, Allgood fell ill and Glasse was sent to live with her grandmother." The semi-colon is a little jarring.
  • "Her family did not find out about the marriage for a month, when she moved out of her grandmother's house and in with her husband in Piccadilly" → "Her family found out about the marriage a month later, when she moved out of her grandmother's house and in with her husband in Piccadilly"
  • "Although her family were angered when they found out..." -- a little repetitive (found out), assuming you opt for my variation above. Could the two sentences be combined? "Her family were angry when they found out about the marriage a month later, when she moved out of her grandmother's house and in with her husband in Piccadilly. Cordial relations soon resumed, and a warm and friendly correspondence followed."
  • "Hannah's first letter to her grandmother apologised for the secrecy surrounding her marriage, but did not apologise for getting married." → too many "marriages/marrieds" and apologise/apologised. etc. Do we need to be reminded of the marriage in "surrounding her marriage", bearing in mind it features only in the previous sentence?
  • "The Glasses moved back to London in November 1734; they were in lodgings until 1738, then moved to Greville Street." → "The Glasses moved back to London in November 1734 where they lodged for four years before moving to Greville Street." Did they lodge in Greville Street? Not important, but if they did why is it important enough to mention? If they bought it, perhaps say, although I'm not sure I would.
  • The source uses the word (or similar) and I think it's more the point that although she was at one stage comfortably(ish) off, finances meant they did not purchase somewhere.
  • "The couple struggled constantly with finances, and in 1744 Glasse tried to sell Daffy's Elixir, a patent medicine, but the project did not take off." → I would probably drop the conjunction in favour of a semi-colon here.

Later years

  • "The book contained what was described as 'an essay upon the lady's Art of Cookery'" – Who described it as such?
  • "...described by the historian Madeleine Hope Dodds as a 'violent onslaught'" -- described/described
  • "...she was imprisoned as a debtor at Marshalsea gaol in June that year before being transferred to Fleet Prison that July." – that year/that July. "...transferred to Fleet Prison a month later"?

Legacy

  • Is there a reason why the google doodle factoid, dare I say, is a) included, and b) in a sentence all on its own?
  • I've merged it with the preceding para. I think it's worthy of inclusion - she is an oft-forgotten individual, and to reach several million Google users for a day is a relatively big deal. - SchroCat (talk) 10:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Glasse has been admired by several modern cooks and food writers. The 20th century cookery writer Elizabeth David writes..." -- writers/writer/writes.
  • Did Fanny Craddock provide a forward or a foreword?

All minor and nothing to prevent my support of this excellent article. CassiantoTalk 20:52, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fantastic to see you back! Many thanks for your comments - I'll deal with them shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • All done, and thanks, as always, for looking in. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

  • Spotchecks not carried out
  • Verifiability: ref 101 contains a total of 13 page references. Where would I begin to look, if I wished to verify this content?
  • The recipes are cited in order of appearance. I've made this clearer, so the footnote now reads: "(Grigson 1993, pp. 31, 33, 37, 58, 139, 191, 225, 231, 240–241, 242, 260, 271–271, 283); recipes cited respectively." Does that work OK for you - the alternative would be to cite them separately, which I tried with this version (footnotes 97 to 109), which we can always go back to.
  • Formats:
  • Ref 74: p. range shows an mdash
  • Books, Glasse 1748: you could give the publisher location as London, and "published by the author".
  • Links: In the internet links, The British Museum is returning error 503, "service unavailable".
  • The whole British Museum site is down at the moment (or at least it is for me!) I'll keep an eye on it for a day or two and archive it when it's up.

Subject to these minor points, it appears that in terms of presentation, quality and reliability the sources meet all the standards required by the FA criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks, Brian. The only sticking point is the British Museum, but when their site is back up I'll archive the link to get it saved. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ritchie333[edit]

Looks good so far, most of the issues have been addressed by the look of it.

  • "Allgood took Reynolds and the young Hannah" - do we need "young" here? I assume this is to distinguish her from her mother in this sentence.
  • The last sentence of the second paragraph in "Early life" has two clauses both starting "Glasse" which just jars a bit with repetition; can one be changed?
  • "Although Glasse was banned...." - this sentence is a bit long, can it be split?
  • "cordial dealings soon resumed, and a warm and friendly correspondence followed" - does this have to be in passive voice?
  • off topic - when I read " that they would rather be imposed on by a French booby" I think of this :-/
  • "She was not alone in plagiarising from other recipe writers" - not sure about "She was not alone", maybe "This plagarism was typical of the time"
  • "and the organisation was wayward in places" - what do we mean by "wayward"?
  • "Glasse's work included the essentials of sweet-, cake- and ices-making" - what is "ices-making" in this context?
  • "Copies of The Servants' Directory were also heavily pirated in America." - is "heavily pirated" a good choice of phrase here?

That's all I can think of for now. A good read and an insightful glimpse into the origins of modern cookery. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cheers Ritchie. Thanks very much for your comments: all covered now. - SchroCat (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's a support from me - well done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Wehwalt[edit]

Just under the wire, no doubt!

Support just a few things:

  • "John was also a widower" I don't know what the "also" is doing there, and it may lead to conclusions that this implies that there was a first widower lurking somewhere earlier in the paragraph, perhaps the lord.
  • " 4th Earl of Donegall" is it not possible to avoid the redlink by a pipe to the article on the title?
  • "The Glasses moved back to London in November 1734 where they lodged for four years before moving to Greville Street." this reads a bit confusingly given that Greville Street is in London.
  • "As was the practice for publishers at the time, Glasse had to provide the names of subscribers" had to implies compulsion, something stronger than mere practice.
  • "although these were often anglicised to remove the heavily flavoured sauces from meat dishes.[72][69] " The refs are in reverse order. Possibly you intend it so.
That's it. I'll leave you to these nitpicks. An interesting read.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cheers Wehwalt. Much appreciated, as always. - SchroCat (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Carabinieri[edit]

Hi. Maybe I'm missing something, but the structure of the article doesn't really make any sense to me. There are "Biography", "Books", and "Legacy" sections. The The Art of Cookery is discussed extensively in all three sections and the way the information is spread over those three sections seems arbitrary to me. The book's discussions of French cuisine are covered in both the "Biography" and the "Books" sections. Could you explain the structure of the article?

The use of "[sic]" (which is overlinked) also seems arbitrary. -- Carabinieri (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are possibly right on the Biography and Books sections (looking at it in the light of your comment), but I think the Legacy section covers a different area (all after her death). Let me go over the Biography section again - there may be some of that info that can be dropped down into the Books section (which I think is the better way for the info to move). I may have missed some parts where sic should be added: I'll look out for those too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to explain the initial rationale, the Biography section deals with the book and Glasse's writing of it and the content; the Books section is more an examination of the book's contents from a third party view, or placing it in terms of the advances of science, household developments etc. yes, there probably will be some overlap, but that was the original rationale used. - SchroCat (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Carabinieri, have a look now. I've moved all the 'contents' of the book down to the Books section and left Glasse's history and approach in the Biography section, where I think it should stay. The Legacy stuff I have left untouched, as it is all post-Glasse information. I've tweaked the sics too. Thanks for your thoughts on this. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's better. I'd consider moving the long quote about French cuisine to the paragraph that discusses Glasse's views on French cooking.
The "The television cook Clarissa Dickson Wright..." paragraph didn't exactly track to me. The first sentence places Glasse within the history of English cooking. Wouldn't be more at home in the legacy section which also discusses Wright's views on Glass? The next sentences are about Glasse being part of the trend towards more savory rather than sweet dishes. But then the quote seems to be criticizing this trend. Maybe I'm missing something. Does this mean that her desserts were more savory than earlier recipes?
  • I've re-worded this, along with the French part. It should be a bit clearer now, but please let me know if I've made it worse. - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"According to the historian Caroline Lieffers, Glasse..." again seems to be about placing Glasse within the broader history, so it would also seem to belong in the legacy section. It segues into discussion of the contents of the book, so I can see why it goes here, but I wonder if the information should be organized differently to avoid this jumping back and forth.
  • With this and the CDW reference above, we are placing Glasse's work in the context of 18th century English cuisine, which is important. The legacy section is just that: the effect Glasse had on later writers, cooks and cookery. I'm happy that we keep the distinction between the two eras separate. - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On the use of "[sic]": I'd actually suggest removing all of them. I think readers will get that her spelling is now obsolete. If you prefer to keep them in, "desert" and "publick" at the very least need them, but arguably "any Thing","every body", and "calves feet" do too. I'd strongly suggest dropping the [sic] after "The Compleat Housewife" since none of the other book titles have it. Footnote p then uses [sic] outside of a quote and features both "pye" and "pie". Did she use both spellings? (Also, maybe add a link for "bon chrétiens pears"?)
  • In reverse order: yes, I've added a link to the pears; yes, Grigson used both spellings; and I'm fairly ambivalent about the use of sic, but on re-reading the comment of Tim riley above (whose comment I misread first time), I see he also advocates removing them. Tim, before I do so, do you agree that I remove all of them, as Carabinieri suggests? - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should certainly do so if it were my decision. The antique spellings are pretty obviously the ipsissima verba, and I really don't think readers are likely to be puzzled, or to imagine that Wikipedia has misspelled them. In my view "sics" break the flow of the prose, and are best kept for the rare cases where there is a real chance of misunderstanding. – Tim riley talk 08:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just one more comment: I don't see much of a case for using the "pye" spelling in the footnote. This isn't part of a quote, so shouldn't we use the most common spelling?--Carabinieri (talk) 03:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That’s the name of the fish as used by Grigson and Claase, so I think it’s best left as is. Cheers - SchroCat (talk),
The caption under the first image reads: "Glasse's signature at the top of the first chapter of her book, The Art of Cookery Made Plain and Easy, 6th Edition, 1758, a defence against rampant plagiarism". I don't really understand how a signature prevents plagiarism. Also, this isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article, so it's not referenced. I'd consider removing the caption and mentioning this (with a reference) elsewhere in the article.
  • Cut from the image for now. I'll try and dig out the reference and add it into the body. - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The phrasing in some paragraphs feels repetitive: "The first edition included ... later editions included ... practical directions, including "about as much thyme ... Glasse also included ... but also ... The book also includes ... The 1756 edition also contained ... Later editions included"--Carabinieri (talk) 02:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I've re-worded some of these, so the language varies, which should cut down on the problem: does that read any better to you? - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Carabinieri I'll act on the sic point once Tim has chipped in (I suspect in agreement with you), but all done, except where I've commented otherwise. Given the changes I'll have another read through shortly to see what the overall looks like. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The sics now deleted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Carabinieri, can you let us know your response to the above replies/actions? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm good with the article as it is now.--Carabinieri (talk) 03:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- I think any remaining minor points from the above can be dealt with post-promotion, thanks everyone. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hannah_Glasse/archive1&oldid=895866619"