Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Everything Tastes Better with Bacon/archive2

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 10:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Everything Tastes Better with Bacon edit

Nominator(s): — Cirt (talk) 18:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everything Tastes Better with Bacon was successfully promoted to WP:GA quality by Hadger, followed by a peer review with helpful comments from Casliber and Herostratus, a prior Featured Article candidate discussion, subsequently had a copy-edit through the Guild of Copy Editors by Lfstevens, and a once-over by FA Writer Tim riley.

Unfortunately, much time during the prior FAC was devoted to responding to comments which later turned out to be sockpuppeting.

I asked FA contributor Tim riley to look it over and he informed me it's ready for consideration a 2nd time at FAC.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration, — Cirt (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bacon , Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Literature, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Breakfast, User talk:Cirt, User talk:Tim riley, User talk:Hadger, User talk:Casliber, User talk:Lfstevens, User talk:Herostratus, User talk:Another Believer, User talk:Wizardman, User talk:Tbhotch, User talk:Victoriaearle, User talk:Jeff Bedford, User talk:Eric Corbett, User talk:GrahamColm, User talk:Tony1, User talk:Sadads, User talk:Nikkimaria, User talk:JoshuaZ, User talk:SandyGeorgia, User talk:Hunter Kahn. — Cirt (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Note: Please note that I originally became involved with quality improvement contributions to the general topic of bacon, as part of the "Bacon WikiCup" of years past, since defunct, and subsumed by WP:BACON. You can see links related to the history of the "Bacon WikiCup", listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bacon#Bacon_Challenge_and_WikiCup. — Cirt (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I can't pose as an authority, but I do indeed think the article ready for FAC. It's shorter than most FA articles, but it seems to me to say all there is to say on the subject and to meet all the FA text criteria (I am not qualified to comment on images). It is a pleasure to read, is well proportioned, covers the topic fully and without bias, and is thoroughly referenced. A small gem, well worth FA status. Tim riley (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the Support! — Cirt (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from 99of9 edit

"classed it among more intriguing books in the topic". I don't get this. What is "the topic"? Bacon-only recipe books? Surely it's among the only books *on* the topic. --99of9 (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for this helpful recommendation, — Cirt (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So what's "the topic" to which this sentence refers? --99of9 (talk) 19:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is the genre of cooking with bacon. And actually, there are several books on the topic. — Cirt (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think this makes sense if there were no other books at the time in the genre of "cooking with bacon". I've looked up the quote from the GA passed version: "the genre's most interesting and unique cookbooks". Are you sure she's not talking about a more general genre? --99of9 (talk) 09:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you are right, it is a quote about all cookbooks in the entire cooking genre: "Then there's Puff (Chronicle Books, $19.95) by Portland Oregonian food editor Martha Holmberg. The puff in the title refers to puff pastry, and Holmberg has developed 50 recipes using the versatile French dough. She shows you how to make it from scratch, but nearly every recipe can be prepared with the frozen variety. Puff is a delicious offering from the publisher who produces the genre's most interesting and unique cookbooks, among them the 2002 book Everything Tastes Better with Bacon by Sara Perry." Thank you, I double-checked the source and that is the full quotation. — Cirt (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What were the total sales of the book? I can see 30k in the first month, but I can't even see which month that was, since the article only talks about publication in 2002. --99of9 (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Added month to the info for this sentence. As far as total sales, as you can see my research took me through quite a multitude of secondary sources, and I could find none that reported total sales. — Cirt (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Where was it sold? --99of9 (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Done. Added locations to publisher info in lede. — Cirt (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*What was the retail price? --99of9 (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Done. Added retail price to publication info in Background sect. — Cirt (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*"She discovered that bacon increased the sweet and salt tastes of food". Shouldn't that be "salty"? And what's with the sweet - I thought bacon was a classic example of umami (Yamaguichi, S., Ninomiya, K. 1998. What is Umami? Food Rev. Int., 14(2&3): 123-138, cited by [2]). I don't have access to your (Smith 2002) source, but the word "discovered" seems a bit strange in this context - is that a direct quote, or a paraphrase? --99of9 (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Done. Changed "salt" to "salty". Changed "discovered" to "observed". You can see more quotations which might be illuminating to you in the GA passed version of the article. — Cirt (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The other two bacon-focused books mentioned were both published after this one. Was this one the first ever? --99of9 (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, this was not the first ever book about cooking with bacon, if you are interested in others, please see Category:Books about bacon, and of course searches at Amazon.com or Google Books are helpful. :) — Cirt (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you name one that was earlier and about cooking bacon? The only one in the wiki category that might qualify seems to be Bacon and Hams, but that seems to be more about cutting up pigs. --99of9 (talk) 22:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm, actually, I'm not one-hundred-percent certain on this one. This search shows some other books that discuss the subject but not as its main topic. In any event, I haven't yet come across any secondary sources that say this was the first book on this topic. Unfortunately, we can't really make that assertion in the article main body text itself, without a WP:RS source that says so. — Cirt (talk) 23:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not advocating WP:OR. What I'm driving at is whether the RS's support a broad enough coverage of the topic to be FA. If RS's do not answer obvious questions like total sales or precedents in the genre, then perhaps we (you) just haven't been given enough to work with. --99of9 (talk) 09:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've cited over forty (40) total references in the article, and in the course of my research come across more than that. I think the topic has indeed received enough secondary source coverage to be FA. I would welcome any other specific suggestions on how to improve the quality of the article. — Cirt (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

40 is well below average for an FA. But it's not really about counting, it's about covering the breadth of all the important aspects of a topic. --99of9 (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. Yes I know this. I believe I have done so for this topic. — Cirt (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*If the original review said "interesting and unique", I think a direct quote of those words might be better than paraphrasing with "intriguing", because the meanings are a little different. --99of9 (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Done. Added quotation from cited source, per this FAC comment by 99of9 (talk · contribs), above. I don't like having any quotes in this article after comments at the last FAC, but hopefully a few sparingly is alright in direct response to subsequent FAC commenters! :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*The link in ref [18] isn't working. --99of9 (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Done. Fixed ref link. This was due to a request from another commenter, at this FAC, below, to italicize that link. But that inadvertently broke the link. Now fixed. — Cirt (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think it was normal to put page numbers should be in both the notes and references section. I could be wrong, I don't usually use the split style. --99of9 (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've received comments at FAC in the past for not having them in one place or the other. The only way to please everyone is to make sure they are in both places. — Cirt (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess they would object if they weren't in the notes, but since more than one note (with different page numbers) can point to the same book reference, my understanding is that it's usual to leave them off the reference book list. --99of9 (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but as I think I recall comments at FAC in the past about this, I'd rather not remove them from either place, just to be extra sure. — Cirt (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave this open in case there's consensus amongst reviewers. --99of9 (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sounds good, thank you, — Cirt (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*"Edition: 1ST" drop the caps? --99of9 (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Done. Dropped the caps. — Cirt (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Crisco 1492 (addressed) edit

Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk by user, see diff

Image review by Crisco 1492 edit

Oh yeah, all images are fine assuming OTRS is correct. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! — Cirt (talk) 04:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose and images. Shame I'm in a majority Muslim country right now, otherwise... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the helpful comments and the Support! — Cirt (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tbhotch (addressed) edit

Addressed comments from Tbhotch from Tbhotch moved to talk page, per agreement with user, see diff

Support, good work Cirt. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the Support! — Cirt (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto (addressed) edit

Addressed comments from Cassianto moved to talk page, per agreement with user, see diff

Support -- Comments resolved. A good article on a quirky subject. -- Cassianto ^Talk 20:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the Support! — Cirt (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jimfbleak (addressed) edit

Addressed comments from Jimfbleak moved to talk page, per agreement with user, see diff

Support ~~Comments~~ by Jim Interesting article. First read comments follow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No further issues, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the Support! — Cirt (talk) 06:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review from Brianboulton edit

Sources review Nitpicks:

Kristin Eddy article should have "subscription" template
Dwight Garner article: title appears to be just "Cooking"
Sara Perry 2002 book is listed out of alphabetical sequence

Otherwise,sources and citation formats look fine. Brianboulton (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to sources review

Done. Added "subscription" template.
Done. Trimmed title to just "Cooking".
Done. fixed alphabetical sequence for Sara Perry 2002 book.

Thanks very much for these helpful pointers, — Cirt (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton (addressed) edit

Addressed comments by Brianboulton moved to talk page, per agreement with user, see diff.

Support: All my concerns appropriately addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the helpful comments and the Support! — Cirt (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 06:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.