Talk:Georgiana Hill (cookery book writer)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Georgiana Hill (cookery book writer)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Therapyisgood (talk · contribs) 12:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

can review this Therapyisgood (talk) 12:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• No DAB links, no dead links

• Lead paragraphs could be combined

• I've combined two, but I dislike one-lead articles, and there are sufficient difference between the two remaining to retain both

• Without reading the article (yet) there's nothing on her death in the lead, although it's mentioned in the article. Also nothing on her working as a nurse in later years.

• Neither of them are particularly lead-worthy (death of natural casues in old age rarely is worthwhile), and we have only a passing reference in the body to work as a nurse, so it would be a bit too much weight to have it in the lead.

• Little is known about her early life, but in 1851 Perhaps separate the sentences. I'm not sure in 1851 (age 25–26 would be considered someone's "early life")

• Done

• who remained unmarried, for their lives or simply for this period?

• Done

• which she published under the pseudonym "An Old Epicure" she published it herself? Or did a publishing company publish it?

• Done

• the compendium a compendium in specific or just a compendium?

• "the compendium" is correct in BrEng as it refers to the format

• Hill published Everybody's Pudding Book in 1862 again, self-published?

• Done

• There is only one page that links here, making this page an orphan. See here.

• Actually an orphan has no links, so this technically isn't one, although it is, possibly, under linked. - SchroCat (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Now up to the giddy heights of three, and I’m not sure there are any more places where is can be added without a crowbar! - SchroCat (talk) 06:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• With reading the article, there's nothing on the republishing in 2012 in the lead, which I think is notable.

• Added

• Can you list any other authors in specific who conflated the two?

• Added one solid example with a reputable histroian making the error.

• Files check out for copyright.

• Any information on where she was buried if she was buried at all?

• None I could see (Not even in unreliable sources like Find a Grave).

• Perhaps "works" could be better titled as "Bibliography", it would be great if you could link the available books since they're PD.

• I'd prefer "Works"; some articles on WP use "Bibliograhy" as the name of the source list, so something different avoids possible confusion. I've added the links to the available works.

That is my review. Therapyisgood (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks Therapyisgood. It's Mrs Cat's birthday today, so a short interlude until I'm able to edit freely, but I'll be on these shortly! Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Therapyisgood, The actionable points on this are now all done. Thanks for the review you've done. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Final notes:

• One more link from somewhere would be good... even though I'd call it poorly-linked than an orphan. Only two link here; one is a hatnote...

• There are three pages that link here. Do you have suggestions where a fourth link could go, as there isn’t anywhere it would naturally fit.

• Women in English society, 1500-1800 needs an ndash in the title for the year range in the "Sources" section

• Done

• I would consider adding another photo for the "Life" section.

• I’ve added another book page, as there is nothing else that springs to mind, but I’m not sure how beneficial to the reader that is.

• Spotchecks on references 14 and 9 check out. The preview for the Oxford entry by Rachel Rich also checks out, and proves she was a real person. Will pass after the above are responded to. Therapyisgood (talk) 05:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Passing. Therapyisgood (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)