Talk:Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Peter Isotalo (talk · contribs) 00:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

This is my first GA review in a very, very long time. I'm slightly familiar with Brillat-Savarin through my interest in cuisine history, so that's why this seemed interesting to me. I'm not sure what to write as an opening so I'll try to focus on just the different criteria. I'll limit comments here to what I think needs fixing before an approval. Assume that anything I haven't commented on is appreciated and approved.

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   • Grammar and spelling seem fine to me but the language is somewhat complicated. Sentences like the first one in the lead should be split up to make them easier to read. Similar with "Rising to eminence..." and "On 2 February 1826..." The order of events do get a bit convoluted at times as well.#:*There's an unnecessary use of local "flavor terms" like "Notary Royal. If it's a notary public, the prose should say that.

     When I review articles for GA (or FAC) I try avoid falling into the trap of saying, "This is how I would write it, therefore you must too". Do you contend that as drawn the prose fails to meet the "reasonably well written" criterion? If so we must agree to difffer. Tim riley talk 08:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

   • The phrase "good food was taken seriously" is hard to understand. Does it mean that Ain and its surroundings were known for fine food? Did its inhabitants self-identify as gourmets? Mostly looking for the prose to state the obvious.

     Seems perfectly clear to me. Tim riley talk 08:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

   • "Brillat-Savarin learned from friends and acquaintances..." As a child, schoolboy, adult?

     Age not given by the sources. I'd guess as a child, but I cannot be certain. Tim riley talk 08:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

   • Not thrilled about "hankered"; it comes off as very old-fashioned and a bit too whimsical for an encyclopedia. Something more neutral perhaps?

     The OED describes the use of the word ("To have a longing or craving. Const. after; less usually with for) and describes it as a "common" usage. Would I be right in guessing that BrE is not your native language? Tim riley talk 08:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

   • If it's possible, can you write out the type of court he first practiced in in the sentence with "making his first court appearance"? Not a lengthy explanation about the contemporary legal system but simply whether it was a local, regional, royal, military, whatever.

     No idea. The old French legal system bore few resemblances to ours and the sources do no go into detail. Tim riley talk 08:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

   • The part about how we tried to "alleviate the deprivations of the poor" comes off more like a motivation than a description of what he actually did as a jurist. Is this possible to make more concrete without going into excessive detail?

     It was not as a court lawyer he was seeking to act. Tim riley talk 08:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

   • "...to represent the Third Estate of Belley." Please add how many representatives there were in total to provide appropriate context to readers.

     No idea. The sources don't think it necessary to say, and nor do I. Tim riley talk 08:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

   • What's a "civil tribunal"? Why not "civil court"?

     It was called a tribunal. We have them here, remember: Industrial Tribunals hear claims for unfair dismissal. Tim riley talk 08:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

   • Write large numerals like "eighty-three" in numbers, please.

     Why? Nothing about that in the MoS. You seem to be taking the "I'd do it this way and so must you" line again. Tim riley talk 08:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

   • Does Professeur mean the same as "Professor" in contemporary English? Does it mean the same thing as in modern English?

     No idea. I merely follow the sources. Tim riley talk 08:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

   • The passages around "what a biographer calls 'undoubtedly numerous' encounters with the opposite sex" is extremely vague. Specify what you mean here and WP:OBVIOUS, please. None of that "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" stuff...

     The sources do not give any specific examples of sexual activities by Brillat-Savarin but suggest that he enjoyed himself in that respect. Tim riley talk 08:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

   • "The book has not been out of print in France since it first appeared." So when was it actually published? And consider changing it to just "has been in print" instead of a kind of double negative.

     "has not been out of print" is not a double negative and is a commonly used way to express the point. You can see it applied in books in the Internet Archive to works by Thomas a Kempis, Thomas Carlyle, Geoffrey Chaucer, Robert Frost, Primo Levi, Somerset Maugham, V S Naipaul, George Orwell, Bram Stoker, Anthony Trollope, H G Wells, Gilbert White and many others, but although I think "has been in print" makes the point less strikingly I have adopted it to please you. Tim riley talk 08:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

   • "Industriel" and "affinage" are both unnecessarily technical jargon. Reword these with more commonly understood terms.

     These are essential terms for French cheesemaking, and are blue linked. I am not inclined to obey your rather peremptory order. Tim riley talk 08:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

   • When was the savarin cake invented? I would love an image of this in the article!

     I do not know. Feel free to add an image if you have one. Tim riley talk 08:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

   • The quote that begins with "To say that..." is incomprehensible to anyone who doesn't know in some detail who Turgenev is or what his book is about. You need to help the reader a bit here.

     Please suggest alternative wording to "help the reader a bit". Tim riley talk 08:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

   • "Despite his concern about avoiding fattening foods..." I don't understand the logic here. What is he criticized for exactly?

     As I read it, it could not be more obvious that Mrs David is criticising him for telling everyone to eat compulsory cheese to the detriment of "all our waistlines and our digestions" Tim riley talk 08:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

   b. (MoS: Noted a few "watch out for"-words here and there: "his beautiful cousin", "his wise advice".

   • These are from the source. Overkill to put them in quotes, I think, an a fortiori to clog the prose up with "what so-and-so calls" or "what such-and-such describes as" but I will do so if you insist. Tim riley talk 08:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   • Yup

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   • I read the article as though Brillat-Savarin spoke good English before he arrived in the US. If this is the case, I'd really like to know how he learned English. Was it common for middle class French to learn English as a second language at the time?

     I don't know, and nor do the sources find it necessary to enlarge on the point. Tim riley talk 08:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

   • The content on translations seems a bit haphazard and without any real context. I'd like to see more summary style here with more seductiveness regarding examples. How many languages has it been translated to in total for example? And what's with the mention of how amazing the Fisher translation is? How is this relevant to the topic?

     As the topic is at that point about translations it seems to me wholly relevant to the matter, and her comments on BS's prose are very much ad rem too. Tim riley talk 08:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   • In my mind, "Reputation and influence" should come right after the biography. From what I understand, Brillat-Savarin is a pretty big deal as an originator of ideas about food. That's key content and is more important than the more technical details about the structure and translations of his works.

     As above: different writers choose different approaches. How is your preference relevant to the neutral point of view policy? Tim riley talk 08:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

5. It is stable: Yup.
6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   • I would appreciate if all images were provided with a date of creation or publication. Preferably also the original source, as in what publication or context. I believe it's always an important service to readers to present historical images with appropriate context.

     Already provided where I have them. Tim riley talk 08:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I suspect from the tone of your comments that this review is going nowhere. Happy to withdraw and resubmit, if so. Tim riley talk 08:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

If that's how you feel then go ahead. Don't think it's very constructive, though. Thinking particularly of your replies to the comment on section placement and regarding minor image improvements. Peter ^Isotalo 11:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what the procedure is for doing so. I think you have to fail the GAN and then I can resubmit it, but I'm not sure, as I have never run across this problem before at GAN (25 articles) or at FAC (53 FAs jointly or severally) for that matter. Tim riley talk 12:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

My suggestion is that you take a week to think it over. If you feel the same way after giving it some time, we'll figure out what to do. Deal? Peter ^Isotalo 12:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

As you wish. Might be an idea to seek a second opinion, but that must be your decision, not mine. Tim riley talk 07:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

We'll cross that bridge when we get to it. Peter ^Isotalo 13:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Just swinging by as I had left some comments after Tim riley's recent update. I'll point out in advance that was at Tim's request, as I've worked with him on other articles that we've taken to FAC together. I've looked at the comments above, and it seems this interaction hasn't gone as smoothly as it could do, but looking at the comments, I'm wondering how these all fit with the Wikipedia:Good article criteria, rather than a personal desire to see things done differently. Peter Isotalo, I think that it would be good if you went back over your comments to see if they fit within the GA criteria. It may be best if those that aren't in line with the GA criteria are struck (if the text also fits within the strictures of the MOS and WP's wider policies and guidelines). If not, then you may as well pull the plug on it now as wait a week to do so. - SchroCat (talk) 09:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

SchroCat, the jist of my pointers here are about writing understandably. I have trouble seeing how this is simply down to "personal desire"; quality of prose does not come down to a set of simple rules or arguments about what individual words mean or convey. What I'm arguing for here primarily is more terse and straightforward prose and, above all, less complicated grammar. I have nothing against discussing the validity of individual comments, but not a wholesale dismissal of my whole approach; that's an agree to disagree situation where I would expect at least a minimum of respect to my effort as a reviewer.

I'm extremely put off by the approach here overall. Even my enthusiastic encouragement to add an image is met with a terse "do it yourself"-response. As if it was difficult to locate. Also, just holding off on commenting for just a week would had zero consequences for the article or the process. I intended it as an offer to reconsider the response.

As a reviewer, I'd like a straight answer here from Tim: are you prepared to engage in dialogue with me or have you already written me off as incompetent to review your preferred approach to writing GA articles? Peter ^Isotalo 10:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Part of my issue in looking over this are comments such as "Write large numerals like "eighty-three" in numbers". Why? That seems to be a personal choice, given the MOS allows both "eighty-three" and "83". Comments such as this fall outside GA criteria and the strictures of the MOS. Ditto the desire to change the order of the sections. That's your personal preference and not something that is indicated by either the GA criteria or the MOS. As I've suggested above, it would be good if you went back over your comments to which ones are covered by the GA criteria or the MOS and strike those that are not. - SchroCat (talk) 11:03, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to SchroCat for that helpful pointer. As to Peter Isotalo's demand for a straight answer, I could give one, but I'm not sure it is seemly for the examinee to question the capability of the examiner. If the latter genuinely believes that s/he is judging according to Wikipedia's agreed criteria rather than according to his/her arbitrary personal preferences, so be it. I hoped for a review based on Wikipedia's preferred approach to writing GAs as specified in the published criteria, which you can find here, but if you continue to prefer your own criteria I shall be content for you to fail the GAN and I can then renominate it in the reasonably confident hope of being reviewed by an editor who has read and understood our agreed criteria. If s/he thinks my attempts at the King's English substandard I shall accept the verdict without protest, particularly if s/he suggests alternative wording to any phrasing to which s/he objects as the present reviewer has been invited, unsuccessfully, to do. Tim riley talk 13:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I believe your reply here says more about your attitude to unexpected criticism than it does about my abilities to review articles. It's clear what your choice is here and I'm not taking responsibility for it. Peter ^Isotalo 16:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

If you'd like to withdraw and then immediately renominate, Tim (similar as to what was done at Charles III: exhibit a and b for those unfamiliar) then I'd be more than happy to do the review according to our criteria. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like a excellent idea. I've never reviewed any of Tim's GAs, given we've worked very closely on FAs and know each other offline too - it would be too much of a conflict for me to do it - but if you're happy to judge this against the criteria and MOS, that would be a good step. - SchroCat (talk) 14:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you both very much. I have (I hope) done as suggested and I hope the article is now once again open for scrutiny and suggestion. Tim riley talk 14:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Request to close

Tim or Tim, I'm requesting that either of you close this review. My view is that I was never actually a reviewer and therefore I'm not going to either pass or fail.

This is not a comment on the quality of the second review, just a matter of principle. Peter ^Isotalo 16:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

This becomes more and more perplexing. I have been notified on my talk page by a bot "on behalf of Peter Isotalo" that the GAN has failed. If there is any closing to be done I think it will have to be Peter Isotalo who does it, though I admit this is terra incognita for me. Tim riley talk 16:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Do we need an official close? The precedent we have is the one set by the double-GARed Charles III, whose first GA was never closed properly by the first reviewer. If I recall correctly, the main issue with that GAN was the question of stability within the article, given the ongoing disputes on the talk page. If a close is needed for the stability of this article for the second review, I'll close it so we can get this biography on terra firma. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that: most helpful in confusing circs! Tim riley talk 17:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)