Wikipedia:Peer review/Eliza Acton/archive1

Eliza Acton

Eliza Acton was an English food writer extraordinaire and poet. She produced one of Britain's finest cookbooks, which, even 170 years later, remains fresh and engaging. The book is also important for being the first to provide a list of ingredients for each recipe, and timings for each step of the process. She was also a passable poet, and provided a later, scholarly work on the history and culture of bread making in England. This has been through a bit of a re-write recently and any comments are most welcome. A trip to FAC is envisaged, unless reviewers think it best not. – SchroCat (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton

I used a few spare minutes to jot down some points from the Early life section:

• "In 1811 Trotman died..." Who he?
• You say John was offered a junior partnership, but also that he likely had to borrow money to purchase it. So it seems that what he was offered was an opportunity to become a partner, rather than a partnership.
• Opening a school at the age of 18 is a rather bold move. Is there any information relating to Acton's own education that ties in with this?
  • Not that I could see. I'll go over the sources again to see if I can scrape any info from them. - SchroCat (talk) 12:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• "and probably closed by 1825" → "and had probably closed by 1825"
• Hardy should be introduced
  • We give the details in the last line of the first para. - SchroCat (talk) 12:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• It's a little odd that you give details of the illegitimate child story and then thoroughly debunk it. If there is little or no likelihood of truth in the story, then best leave it out, or at least relegate it to a footnote.
  • I'll re-work this. Most of the biographical material refer to a possible pregnancy (with varying degrees of scepticism), but Aylett and Ordish give more details. I'll clarify all this before FAC, and if you still don't think it suitable at that stage, I'll drop it into a footnote. - SchroCat (talk) 12:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I will be back with more. Brianboulton (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Many thanks Brian. - SchroCat (talk) 12:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's the rest - very little, as Tim has had a go since. Here are my meagre offerings:

• "She subsequently wrote some individual, longer poems..." I'm not sure what purpose "individual" serves
• I wonder about "a recipe for brussels sprouts" - do they require a recipe? I thought you just boiled the disgusting things.
• In your current values footnote you inadvertently convert £57 rather than £67

That's all. Brianboulton (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Many thanks Brian, as always. I'll address that pregnancy point shortly, and thanks for the rest. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The man who hath no Brussels sprouts for lunch, Is fit for treasons, strategems and spoils. Do not listen to this man. I have a wonderful recipe: you blanch them, then braise them gently in an obscene amount of butter in a low oven. Tim riley talk 18:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ha - quite right too! Nice recipe - I'll give that a go sometime. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Tim

• Lead
  • Although I don't usually recommend overdoing prepositions, I really think "the first recipes for Brussels sprouts and spaghetti" would read better as "the first recipes for Brussels sprouts and for spaghetti". The idea of sprout pasta does not wangle my nurdles one little bit.
  • "Well-structured … well-received" – when, as here, not used attributively I don't think one hyphenates them. I think it's "a well-structured book" but "the book is well structured" etc.
  • There's a lot of publishing in the second para: three publisheds, one publisher and one republished.
  • "the book was admired by…"– as Delia and Stein are still with us and presumably still admire the book I think I might make this "the book has been admired by…"

• Early life
  • "In 1811 Trotman died" – sadly missed I don't doubt, but this is the first we've heard of him in the main text, and not every reader will look at the footnotes. Perhaps mention the name of the firm in the previous sentence? (Ah, I see BB is ahead of me.)
  • "Hardy doubts the theory" – from what follows this it seems to me that Hardy does more than doubt it. She evidently dismisses, discounts, rejects or gives a resounding raspberry to it.
  • "it is possible the couple became engaged, although this was broken off" – not keen on this: for one thing "it" was broken off has no noun to refer to, and for another the clause starts as a possibility but by the end it has the appearance of a fact. Perhaps something like, "it is possible there was an engagement, but if so it was broken off. She returned…"
• As a poet
  • I think this section heading would be better as just "Poet". Likewise the next would be better just as "Cookery writer". Just my opinion, natch.
  • "standalone" – not a word known to me or the OED, though one gets the drift.
  • "published in a local publication" – there's a lot of it about
  • "In his absence…" – there are three houses in this sentence. The second could perhaps be building.
• As a cookery writer
  • The second sentence seems to contradict itself. You say firmly that Longmans said X and then tell us that according to Hardy they didn't. I think you want a "reportedly" or "it is said that" or some such at the outset.
  • "The un-named critic" – I wouldn’t hyphenate this. And "they" needs to follow a plural noun, not a singular one.
  • The para about the reviews is a bit repetitive, and could do with a little boiling down.
    • Will do. - SchroCat (talk) 12:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "Longmans sent her £67" – first mention of Eliza for a while: perhaps put her name in here rather than the pronoun?
  • "interrupted her research in order to write" – it doesn't bother me, but some people get aerated about "in order to", insisting that it should be just "to".
  • "was only reprinted in 1990" – perhaps "was not reprinted until 1990"?
• Poems
  • "her former fiancée" – if he was her fiancée: you say earlier that this is only a possibility.
  • The punctuation of the (rather good I think) poem needs tidying. The hyphens at the end of the fourth and thirteenth lines should be em-dashes, and I don't think the colon at the end of line 13 wants a space before it.
• Cookery
  • First para: if you're going to tell us what Liebig was known for it looks a bit lopsided not to do the same for Gregory, if only to call him Liebig's disciple, successor or some such.
• Legacy
  • "...1994 while The English Bread Book was reprinted in 1990…" – I wouldn't use "while" to mean "and", especially when you have dates on either side of it: it takes us into "Miss X played Bach while the choir sang the National Anthem" territory.
  • "Isabella Beeton's biographer…" the grammar goes off the rails here. I think a comma and a "which" before "are" will make all well.
• Notes
  • I'm not sure we need to know the stuff in note B, though I suppose it does no harm to have it there.
    • Only to explain why Acton was running the company while the others still lived. - SchroCat (talk) 12:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

That's my lot. I don't think the comparative brevity of this article need deter you from going to FAC. There are plenty of shorter FAs, and if there's no more to be said about Eliza Acton we certainly don't need extra ballast for the sake of it. – Tim riley talk 17:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Many thanks Tim - much appreciated. I've addressed all except one of your points: the review paragraph, which I shall trim down a little later today. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Seems well written enough, though I don't know much about cooking. Just a few comments:

• "Alongside several recipes, the work consisted of a history of bread making in England and a study of European methods of baking." this makes it sound like the recipes were not part of the work.
• I might throw an Eliza before one of the Actons in the third paragrpah of "Early life".
• "Hardy dismisses the theory, stating that Acton not have a sister called Sarah, let alone one who was married" missing word?
• "It is possible that Acton was pregnant when she left for Paris and that went abroad to have an illegitimate daughter." should there be a "she" before "went"?
• "As was the practice for publishers at the time, Acton had to provide the names of subscribers—those who had pre-paid for a copy—who were listed inside the work; nearly all those whose names were included came from Suffolk." I might cut "those whose names were included" as not needed.
• "In 1827 John Acton was declared bankrupt, and the company in which he was a partner was dissolved; one of his business partners was involved in the claim against him. The Commissioner of Bankruptcy ordered John to surrender himself to them to disclose his wealth," Who is "them"?
• "which contrasted with other cookery books;[41]" is a full stop intended at the end?
• " £67 11s 2d" I might drop a footnote explaining, for those post-1971.
• "most of them were on the theme of unrequited love and several relate to her feelings towards her possible former fiancée." I might put a "may" before relate.
• The social historian John Burnet observes that although the dishes were supposedly aimed at middle class families of modest income, the book contains recipes that include truffles in champagne, soles in cream and a pie of venison and hare".[78][k] I've omitted quotes to show there seems to be a stray one after hare.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks Wehwalt; all done, bar the LSD footnote, which I'll deal with shortly. Much obliged as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)