There are five issues here that need to be sorted for the article to avoid being failed:
The article doesn't always keep to the topic—the book is by Spurling—not about the manuscript book by Fettiplace. Clearly her recipes are set out in an edited form in Spurling's book, but they by no means form a large part of it.
- Well, the book is of course edited and published by Spurling, but the two are not wholly separable, as Spurling relies on Fettiplace and the receipts are entirely Fettiplace's. I have actioned the comments below directly to clarify the respective roles of Fettiplace and Spurling.
- Examples of what I mean:
Elinor Fettiplace's Receipt Book is a book of recipes compiled in 1604… - no it's not, it's a book about the recipes compiled by Elinor Fettiplace during her lifetime;
- Edited.
- ...compiled by Fettiplace... - her full name (including her maiden name) should be included here (Lady Elinor Fettiplace (born Elinor Poole)) and in the main text. To reiterate, the book was not complied in 1604—it was inscribed with that date, and was compiled during her adult life. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
- Said that.
- Thanks.
The book was first published only in 1986... - this implies the topic is the manuscript book, it's better to say Fettiplace's recipes first appeared when the book was published in the 1980s;
- Edited.
The Recipes section would make more sense starting off with 'Elinor Fettiplace provides recipes...';
- Good idea. Done.
..., the book contains marginal notes - the manuscript does, not Spurling's book.
- Done.
It needs to be clear in the article that Fettiplace's recipes are randomly ordered, whereas Spurling decided to organise them in to monthly chapters.
- Done.
There needs to more of a discussion about Fettiplace's book. I found the following examples in Spurling that should be included in the article, probably in a separate section. I'll check the other sources cited to see if there's more that could be added:
- Created a separate section.
pp. ix, 29 - it was a working document, and is a collection of her own recipes and others';
- Done.
p. xi - the book was passed in turn to other women in the family, who probably copied it for themselves, as was normal practice;
- Done.
- Not other women? The normal practice would have been from mother to daughter, which is what Elinor Fettiplace would have done had any of her daughters survived her (Spurling, p. xi; Harris, p. 71). Amitchell125 (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
- Restored.
:p. xi - there's a Spurling's description of Fettiplace's written English;
- Done.
p. 21 - the recipes were collected and annotated at times by Fettiplace;
- Added.
p. 22 - a description of the original book cover and end papers;
- Added.
p. 22 - the copyists included Anthony Bridges; Spurling's description of Bridges' script;
- Added.
p. 29 - the nature of her corrections, her spellings, and the book's tone;
- Added.
p. 31 - a description of the text being clear and simple, etc.;
- Added.
p. 32 surprising examples of what food stuffs are not mentioned in her book;
- Added from p. 31.
p. 35 - the book's index was added later, and up to 8 others added to the recipes;
- Added.
p. 37 - few objects other than the book have survived from the manor that once existed at Sapperton;
- That's off-topic.
- Added to Fettiplace's biography. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
there were terms confusing to modern readers, e.g., p. 43 boyle and walme, which are opposite to their modern meanings.
- Mentioned.
The article lacks information about where the manuscript was written, the influence of Fettiplace's mother, why the book would have been written, comparisons with other similar books, her family the Pooles of Sapperton (who she lived with after the death of Sir Richard Fettiplace) and the provenance of the manuscript.
- Article mentions Appleton Manor. Added detail on her mother and the custom of collecting recipes. Not sure what if anything needs to be said about the Pooles or her residence with them. Article states the manuscript was inherited. Is there more that needs saying on this?
Also, I would say that Fettiplace's manuscript was not published before its inclusion in Spurling's book, and also it was never written for an extended readership outside her own family, and that the manuscript lacks illustrations.
- Done.
- Dotted throughout the article are statements that need to be corrected. I found:
(Infobox) - The 1604 date in the manuscript is not a publication date.
- Removed.
(Context section) - The article describes the manor as substantial, the ODNB says '...relatively modest...';
- Removed.
(Publication) - After an introduction on the Fettiplace family... is incorrect, the introduction discusses far more that.
- Edited.
The book contains over 200 recipes, updated by Spurling. - is incorrect, the original text has been published largely intact down to the original spellings being retained. What Spurling did was to work through many of Fettiplace's recipes, and providing glosses and commentaries for each one in the book.
- Edited.
The book's full title (see Worldcat) is missing.
- Subtitle added.
There are talk page categories connected with the quality of the article—I've no idea where these came from or how to edit them out—which eventually need to be removed.
-
- Fixed.
|