Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Maria Rundell/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 16 August 2019 [1].

Maria Rundell edit

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 07:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Rundell is something of a mystery figure. There is some confusing information about her life up until the point her husband died. After that she becomes a little more public, writes two books and has a feud and long-running court case with her publisher, John Murray. One of her books was something of a sensation: A New System of Domestic Cookery was published in November 1805. It was a huge success and the book sold around half a million copies over the next 75 years or so. This is another in a long-running series of cookery book writers that I have worked on recently, and any constructive comments and suggestions are welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 07:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

All images seem to be located in good sections.

I see no ALT text anywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've fixed the source link; no idea on the watercolourist, and some searches have shown no further information on this. I'll have another dig round to see if I can find something else.
  • Yes, Alts are constant weak spot, and I nearly always forget to add them. I'll go through and sort out shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alts now all added. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM edit

I always enjoy (and learn a lot from) these articles. Happy to have a look.

  • "as she was increasingly unhappy with the way it had declined over time" I don't really understand what this means.
    • Tweaked - is that better now? (Re-reading it critically, I see what you mean by it being unclear) - SchroCat (talk) 10:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we have some more information about the second book in the lead? Publication date, publisher?
  • Is The Feminist Companion to Literature in English an edited collection? If so, perhaps you could credit the view to the particular chapter/entry's author? (And in the references.) I'm a bit surprised by the way you credit things to the newspaper, rather than the author of the article.
    • There is a full page of contributors and their initials, but many of the entries in the work (including that for Rundell) don't identify who wrote it. I dislike quoting a publication too, and only do so when there is no alternative. - SchroCat (talk) 09:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "where they lived with their aunt and uncle" Thomas's brother or sister, presumably? Do we know who these people were? (Probably not that important - but maybe "with Thomas's sister Mary and her husband John Smith" or something would be neat.
    • Absolutely no idea on this. The sources are so scant on her life that it was a bit of a struggle to get as much as there was. We don't even know the names of the daughters! - SchroCat (talk) 09:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's great that you are recording the questionmarks, but it strikes me that in some places, you state the various views (profession of the husband) but in other places you take a side and only mention the controversy in a footnote. Why side with that number of daughters? Why go for that particular publication date?
    • It's the weight of sources. Her husband's profession, for example, has two possibilities, with the weight of sources evenly(ish) split between them. The number of offspring has several sources going with what we have, but a couple of others giving alternatives. I've tried to avoid OR, or taking sides, but the difference is solely in the weight and quality of sources. - SchroCat (talk) 09:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Lord Chancellor stated" Who was this? John Scott, 1st Earl of Eldon, presumably?
    • Presumably - it was in the middle of his second term, so now added - SchroCat (talk) 10:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rundell's work was plagiarised by five other publishers" at least, perhaps?
  • Are the OED quotes important? I don't know. If you are keeping them, be consistent with your italics!
    • I think they show an element of her importance (although only a minor one); I've added italics - SchroCat (talk) 10:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 20th-century cookery writer Elizabeth David references Raffald in her articles, collected in Is There a Nutmeg in the House,[72] which includes a recipe for "burnt cream" (crème brûlée)." Why is this important? Or did you mean Rundell rather than Raffald?
  • "she writes that this "appears to be one of the earliest published English recipes for tomato sauce"." Why does the thTis refer to, here?
  • "The food writer Jane Grigson admired Raffald's work," Again, do you mean Rundell here?

I made some changes, including moving a few paragraphs around. Please do double-check to make sure you're happy with my changes. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • As always, many thanks Josh, I'm very much obliged to you, both for the copy edits and your comments. I hope I've picked up on them appropriately, but please let me know if I've missed something, or haven't quite done your comment justice. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning support, assuming no one spots anything serious. (Could you take a quick look at fn. 73?) Josh Milburn (talk) 09:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do you mean the brackets round the ref - (David 1979, pp. 345–346, 359, 326, 469, 449–451); recipes cited respectively. - I've worked out the way these can be removed. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Tim riley edit

I read this article when its was in draft and I made comments direct to SchroCat. Those (quite minor) comments have been acted on.

On the slip of the pen that twice turned Mrs Rundell into her predecessor Mrs Raffald – spotted by Josh, above – I must plead guilty to failing to spot it. (Having written articles for FAC on Massenet and Messager in succession I have fallen into a similar self-dug trap myself, and know how easy it is.)

JM's other comments, above, seem to me ad rem. Once they are dealt with I expect to be adding my support. Tim riley talk 08:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to add my support now. I enjoyed this article v. much. I doubt there is anything out there that SchroCat has missed which could enhance the article, and it is a good read, resourcefully illustrated and well and widely referenced. Meets the FA criteria, in my judgment. – Tim riley talk 20:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • You've got something seriously wonky with your inflation calculations - £2,100 in 1823 and £20,000 in 1827 are both equal to £167,000 in 2019?
  • Be consistent in whether you include counties for UK locations
    • Done, except where it's obvious (Cambridge and Oxford - same with New York) - SchroCat (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to have assigned the Hardy and Hughes sources the same ISBN
  • The McKendry book should also credit the editor, as should the Randolph
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations and publishers for journals
  • For the Brown article, the link gives the publication date as 1 June
  • What is the difference between the two National Library of Scotland refs? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing. Deleted one. Thanks as always Nikkimaria. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from caeciliusinhorto edit

Just a few comments from me:

  • but advice on medical remedies and advice lots of advice!
  • she was increasingly unhappy with the way it had declined over time can you clarify this?
  • a handwritten inscription on the title page is dated 3 December 1905: is this a typo for 1805?
  • Colquhoun states that the tomato sauce recipe was the first printed recipe. am I being excessively pedantic if I point out that this is certainly not the first printed recipe, only the first printed tomato sauce recipe?

Article looking in good shape as expected from you! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Caeciliusinhorto, I'm much obliged to you. These comments all now dealt with. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • All looking good. Haven't spot-checked sources. Final minor point: why is the reference to the DNB under "journals"? Overall it's a support from me, though.
      • If you use the cite book or cite web refs, a bot comes along and changes it to "cite journal". Odd, but there you go! Thanks very much for your thoughts and comments: they are much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt edit

Just food for thought.
  • "(1745 – 16 December 1828) ... in 1805, when she was 61" Math class is hard, but I see a contradiction here.
  • "book sold around half a million copies, and between 5,000 and 10,000 copies were printed each year." A time period limiting the half million might be useful.
  • "and the types of books a well-mannered girl should read" I might not use the term "girl" what with one thing and another.
  • "Rundell moved to Swansea, South Wales, possibly to live with a married daughter,[9][10][11]" does such a short passage require three cites?
  • I would not use "obtained an injunction" in consecutive sentences when synonyms are available or the text could be jogged. Also watch "style" in second sentence of "Works", "aimed at" shortly thereafter.
  • Do any of the commentators on the cookery book mention the errors complained of? It would be interesting to know if her complaints were justified.
  • "New editions were released into the 1880s[10][4]" order?
  • Were the multiple editions spoken of in "Legacy" simply pirate versions?
  • I don't think so: these appear to be from Murray (in the UK), and ther sources for the US versions do not say they were pirated. - SchroCat (talk) 11:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The food writer Jane Grigson admired Rundell's work, and in her 1978 book Jane Grigson's Vegetable Book, she referred to Rundell's writing, and included her recipe for Red Cabbage Stewed in the English Manner.[75]" I would cut the "she".
That's about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Wehwalt. All tweaked and re-worked what can be done, except where clarified above. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild edit

To bring an article on an obscure, long-dead cook to FAC is merely a peccadillo; to bring two, an idiosyncrasy; three would be cause to be seriously alarmed.

  • Maths. "the book sold around half a million copies in Rundell's lifetime, and between 5,000 and 10,000 copies were printed each year" At your maximum stated rate of printing, 10,000 per year, it would take 50 years to print half a million copies. And was there not a pause in printing from 1819? Given that Rundell died 23 years after publication, something is awry.
    • I've taken out the 5,000–10,000 figure. The half a million figure is widely given, the 5-10k is only in one. - SchroCat (talk) 14:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sent two of her younger daughters to London" As she only had three daughters, should that not be 'sent her two younger daughters to London'? OK, just got to the footnote. But as the indeterminacy isn't in the main text it does read oddly.
  • "the two last cookery books that had sold well" Is it just me, or does "the two last" jar a little?
  • "as in some social circles, the receipt of royalties was thought improper" Is the comma needed?
  • "was more profitable that he thought it would be"
    • ? Was there something to add to this? - SchroCat (talk) 14:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's me being lazy. Possibly "that" → 'than'?
Of course! Now done - SchroCat (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "decided that it would need to be decided by a court of law, not a court of equity" Which will mean little to our mythical average reader, even after referring to the Wikilinks. Any chance of this in English? If only in a footnote.
  • "a well-known jeweller of the firm Rundell and Bridge"; " the well-known jewellers and goldsmiths Rundell and Bridge".
  • "has a section of "Directions to Servants" " Should "of" be 'on'?
  • "which includes a recipe for "burnt cream" (crème brûlée)" "a" → 'her'. (Assuming that is the case.)
  • "Red Cabbage Stewed in the English Manner" Why the upper case initial letters.

What a fine read. Bravo. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Gog, I'm much obliged to you. All sorted bar the one question marked above. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SchroCat. That all looks good. The ? removed from the "mystery comment box". Gog the Mild (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gog: the final piece now done. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A topic which I have little experience of and less interest in, but this article held my attention right the way through. Nice work. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks to you Gog, I'm much obliged. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cass edit

Nothing from me, it all looks rather splendid. CassiantoTalk 18:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I'm much obliged to you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:28, 7 August 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/Maria_Rundell/archive1&oldid=911167439"