Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Everything Tastes Better with Bacon/archive1

Comments from 56tyvfg88yju

• Oppose. Approx. 75% of the article appears to be a cut and paste "quotations" job cited to the cookbook author and her reviewers. How about paraphrasing it ... all of it. I'm not sure it's necessary to list the author's Oregon home and her journalism credentials in the Background section. If we're going to list these we might as well include her alma mater, her sorority, her favorite cooking shows and cookbooks, and her favorite bacon brands. As far as her credentials are concerned, I would prefer to know where and under whom she learned to cook. But I suspect she really hasn't studied cooking in the professional sense. She just writes about food. The contents section features a sort of how-to on cooking bacon. Wikipdia is not a how-to. It might be enough to say "The author includes tips on cooking bacon to maximize flavor and crunchiness" or something to that effect without going into skillets, heavy skillets, ovens, rimmed baking pans, broiler pans, turning versus not turning during cooking, minimizing shrinkage, grease splattering, etc. On the whole, I don't like this article. I think it's unencyclopedic. I feel like I'm being "sold" the book. I want to take a bath after reading it and run my clothes through the washing machine ... all those grease splatters. 56tyvfg88yju (talk) 01:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback — I will strive to address these suggestions, and note it back here when done. -- Cirt (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to 56tyvfg88yju

Thank you, 56tyvfg88yju, for the feedback. I have made several edits to incorporate your suggestions in order to increase the quality of this article.

1. Quotes – I went ahead and took the initiative – and removed all quotations from the article. With quotes diff, without quotes diff.
2. Background – The author's background in journalism and as an author is directly relevant – and other Featured Articles on books actually do include information on the author's prior employment and works before authoring the book itself.
3. Contents – All of the Contents section is sourced to secondary sources, in this manner we are ascribing weight to portions of the book chosen for summary by reliable sources, instead of independently making our own decisions among Wikipedians about what to include. Further, it seems quite odd to suggest reducing the Contents section of a book article on Wikipedia to one-sentence.

Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Improvements have been made but the article lacks the comprehensiveness expected at FA level. For example, we're not told how the book is organized. Is it organized in chapters or sections like "Bacon Main Dishes", "Bacon Cocktails", or "Bacon Cakes and Candy"? Is the book illustrated? Book articles include a separate "Publication history" section and this is needed here. Is the book available in both hard- and softback? Is the book still in print? Cookbooks generally include miscellanea. Are we told of how to dispose of a pan of bacon fat after cooking ten pounds of bacon for a party? Are we told of the best way to rid kitchen towels, tablecloths, and clothing of grease splatters? The "Contents" section still reads like a how-to, whether it's cited to reliable secondary sources or not. Undue weight is given to cooking methods in this section and is borderline copy vio. Some readers such as experienced home cooks will not need to buy the book because you've given them pretty much all they need to know about cooking bacon in this section. For me, the article is uneven and reads like a sales pitch for the book, not an encyclopedia article. The article leaves questions the reader may ask unanswered. I doubt comprehensiveness can be reached here because the article is sourced almost entirely to newspaper book reviews which, of course, do not meet the comprehensiveness expected in an encyclopedia article. It's an acceptable GA article but not up to FA comprehensiveness. 56tyvfg88yju (talk) 07:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, 56tyvfg88yju, for acknowledging that improvements have been made. Thank you for the additional feedback and suggestions. I will see about addressing some of your recommendations, and then note it back here. -- Cirt (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to 2nd set of comments from 56tyvfg88yju

Thank you for these additional comments, 56tyvfg88yju, I was able to address a few of them.

1. Contents – I added info to this sect about structure and organization of the book.
2. Contents – Inserted info in this sect about illustrations in the book.
3. Publication history – I researched and sourced and added a new sect, Publication history – this was actually a great idea because I was able to find info on a publication of the book in another language.
4. I performed searches and research in an attempt to find some additional secondary sources, including perhaps scholarly or academic source coverage – but have not yet been able to find any.

I will continue to attempt to perform additional research to find further source coverage of this book in secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

In examining the lead, I noticed "San Francisco-based". This is not found in the body of the article and nothing can be entered in the lead that is not found in the body. I'm not sure the reader needs this information anyway. It's "flab" that can be trimmed. I checked MoS/Novels and the order of sections should be: Summary (or Contents, I suggest "Content summary"), Background, Publication history, and Reception. I still think the Contents section needs to be trimmed because of copyvio concerns. You've given the reader enough information about cooking bacon that the reader does not need to buy the book. This infringes upon the publisher's and the author's profits. All this info could be reduced to one sentence: "The author includes methods for cooking bacon on the stovetop, in the oven, and under the broiler to maximize its flavor and appearance." This is all that needs to be said to avoid any charges of copyvio. Additionally, the few recipes mentioned are too detailed and again approach copyvio, especially the bagel sandwich and the piecrust. Any home cook can guess how much bacon and cheese to add to the ingredients of the piecrust to mimic Perry's original. This infringes on her right to sell her recipe for a profit. You can rework this passage to read: "Perry includes recipes for a sandwich using bacon, peanut butter and other ingredients, a crunch topping for ice cream, a concoction to top a fruit crisp, and a piecrust that incorporates bacon as an ingredient." Janet Keeler is cited in both the Reception and Impact sections. The material could be combined and placed in one or the other of the sections, probably Reception. 56tyvfg88yju (talk) 03:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to 3rd set of comments from 56tyvfg88yju

Thank you for the additional feedback, I have made some edits to the article to address the above recommendations:

1. I removed "San Francisco-based" from the lede.
2. Re-arranged the sections of the article according to MoS/Novels.
3. Trimmed down the size of the Contents section.
4. Utilized the sentence suggested above by 56tyvfg88yju in the Contents section, "The author includes methods for cooking bacon on the stovetop, in the oven, and under the broiler to maximize its flavor and appearance."
5. Removed detail from the recipes in the Contents section.
6. I used the recommended sentence by 56tyvfg88yjuin the Contents section, "Perry includes recipes for a sandwich using bacon, peanut butter and other ingredients, a crunch topping for ice cream, a concoction to top a fruit crisp, and a piecrust that incorporates bacon as an ingredient."
7. Moved the Keeler info from the Impact section, to the Reception section, as suggested above by 56tyvfg88yju.

Thanks again, -- Cirt (talk) 04:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Better, but I have some problems with the Content summary section. First, I wonder if "believes that" should replace "notes how" in the sentence: "The author notes how consuming bacon products can become habitual." "Notes" suggests to me she is basing her assertion on independent studies or scientific analyses but I suspect the assertion is opinion based on her experience. Do you have any information about the source of her assertion? Also, couldn't "bacon products" be simply "bacon"? I think her assertion can be deleted without harming the article. I've reworked the entire section to tighten it up. The "Publication history" section is too brief for a separate section and I've entered it at the end of the "Content summary" section. Use it or toss it ...

"Perry explains her feelings about bacon in the book's introduction: "In the morning, the sound and smell of bacon cooking in the skillet give me the feeling that I have time. I can relax and savor the day." She offers 70 recipes for bacon-flavored dishes in nine chapters organized by topics that include breakfast, greens, pasta meals, side dishes, party servings, and desserts. Meals and appetizers are discussed. Recipes include a sandwich using bacon and other ingredients, a bacon crunch topping for ice cream, a bacon concoction to top a fruit crisp, and a piecrust that incorporates bacon. Methods are offered for cooking bacon on the stovetop, in the oven, and under the broiler to maximize its flavor and appearance. The book is illustrated throughout with photographs by Sherri Giblin. Bacon was published in paperback by Chronicle Books in 2002, and in French by Les Editions de l'Homme in 2004, as part of the series What a dish!."

I've reworked the "Background" section as well to cut the flab and tighten it up.

"Columnist for The Oregonian, radio restaurant commentator, and cookbook writer Sara Perry had written and published four books (The New Complete Coffee Book, The New Tea Book, Christmastime Treats, and Weekends with the Kids) when her editor at Chronicle Books suggested bacon as a cookbook subject. Bacon was becoming increasingly popular at the time, but Perry believed a paucity of recipes would make the project difficult. Recalling her fondness for honey-baked ham however, she combined sugar and bacon to create dishes, and realized that bacon could be used like "a good spice or wine" in flavoring dishes including salads and pastas. Bacon, she discovered, increased the sweet and salt tastes of food." 56tyvfg88yju (talk) 05:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to 4th set of comments from 56tyvfg88yju

Thank you, 56tyvfg88yju, for the additional feedback. I have made a series of edits to directly incorporate many of your suggestions:

1. Changed "notes how", to "believes that".
2. Removed "products", from "bacon products", changed to just "bacon".
3. Incorporated recommendations from reworked section for Contents summary, directly into the article.
4. Moved the Publication history info, into the Background section.
5. Utilized the above suggested structure and changes for the Background section, and incorporated lots of these good recommendations directly into the article.

Thanks again for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 23:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you're expanding the article, but as the "Genre" section now stands, I anticipate some problems. It's established in the book's title that this is a bacon cookbook, so the first sentence in "Genre" is unnecessary. You tell us "bacon had been "vilified by nutritionists"", but you don't tell us why. This creates problems with the article's comprehensiveness. Eliminate this sentence or tell readers why nutritionists had "vilified" bacon. You then tell us bacon "was becoming an increasingly used cooking ingredient" and cite it to CSM. I don't know how this publication would know this unless they took a worldwide survey. This brings up one of my greatest concerns: The article is cited mainly to newspapers. Has this book not been evaluated by professional chefs and nutritionists? Paula Dean perhaps, or Wolfgang Puck? The White House dietician or head chef? What about food magazines? I would prefer that these sorts of sources were cited rather than newspapers. I may be wrong but I don't believe newpspaper commentators have the expertise to evaluate this book at the culinary professional level. Is there a chance you could dig around among culinary professionals, magazines, and books for some comment on Perry's book, its recipes, and the broader spectrum of bacon in general? The Genre section could be merged with the Background section as the opening paragraph something like this:

"Bacon, long a breakfast staple and fast food burger topping, collided with nutritionists in the last quarter of the twentieth century when its high cholesterol levels and its carcinogenic additives received intense condemnation. The meat industry fought back, and bacon saw a resurgence in popularity. For the first time in cookbook history, tomes devoted solely to the product began appearing on bookstore shelves. Among these was Sarah Perry's Everthing Tastes Better with Bacon in 2002. Perry was a newspaper food columnist and radio commentator and the author of cookbooks on tea, coffee, and Christmas treats, when her editor at Chronicle Books suggested bacon as a cookbook subject. She felt a paucity of bacon recipes would make such a project difficult, but, recalling her fondness for honey baked ham, she combined sugar and bacon to create recipes from appetizers to desserts. Etc."

You may have to depart from newspaper accounts to write about bacon's place in the last quarter of the twentieth century. A style point: Once the book's full title has been established in the first few paragraphs, it can be abbreviated through the rest of the article. Bacon is sufficent. It's not necessary to spell out this long title throughout the article. 56tyvfg88yju (talk) 00:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but these comments do not appear to be actionable. -- Cirt (talk) 01:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

They certainly are "actionable". I agree with Truthkeeper88 on the book's notability. There appears to be none other than its newspaper reviews. Thousands of books are reviewed every day by newspaper writers but Bacon is not the best selling bacon cookbook of all time, it's not the first bacon cookbook, and its author is not notable. Perhaps the article should be run through AfD. But I've just received a curt note from Cirt on my talk page that I not comment on this article in the future. Fine. But my Oppose will stand. I think there are many ways this article can be improved but it will never meet FA IMHO because the nominator is resisiting good faith input not only from me but others. This article is simply not FA material. It has been compiled mainly from newspaper articles and reads like a sales pitch for the book rather than an encyclopedia article. Sorry, Cirt, but a Thumbs Down from me.56tyvfg88yju (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Update: Checkuser  Confirmed the account 56tyvfg88yju as a sock along with three (3) other accounts, of banned user, ItsLassieTime. -- Cirt (talk) 17:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)