Talk:Compendium ferculorum, albo Zebranie potraw/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I'll take this one on. Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 09:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments

Firstly, it is good to see a well-constructed article on a historic Polish cookbook. Secondly, I must note that I am unable to verify the contents of the Polish sources, so I am accepting them in good faith.

• The lead section should perhaps be split, the second paragraph starting "The chapters are devoted" and the third "The book was republished". The lead is a little short and might perhaps be extended slightly.
  • Split. Any suggestion as to what kind of information could be added to the lead? — Kpalion^(talk) 21:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Just a little more coverage of each section of the article.

• The first and third paragraphs of 'Background' partly repeat and anticipate the dedication of the following section. I suggest the overlapping material be merged with that section so that the background section is purely about the context of the book without entering within its covers: indeed the section could equally be named 'Context'.
  • Partly done. I've decided to leave part of the first paragraph in the 'Context' section without delving into the content of the book. — Kpalion^(talk) 21:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

OK.

• The section 'Title, dedication, inventory and introduction' should I think be split into 'Title and Dedication', 'Inventory', and 'Introduction' (or 'Advice') sections. These each have rather distinct purposes, and there seems no good reason to lump them together.
  • Done. — Kpalion^(talk) 21:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• The section 'Recipes' is in fact about the book's structure. I'd suggest it be named 'Structure' to reflect its content. I find that a structure section is often useful for cookbooks of all types, as they vary widely. Who knows, perhaps one day there'll be a Wikidata metadocument calling for just such a section in all cookbook articles.
  • Done. — Kpalion^(talk) 21:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• You might like to consider having two subsections within 'Legacy', named something like 'Polish cookbooks' and 'Old Polish feast in Pan Tadeusz'.
  • I've split this section into 'Culinary' and 'Literary' subsections. — Kpalion^(talk) 21:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• In Editions and translations, you might wish to move part of the last paragraph, about the Russian translation, to form a new second paragraph, so that the account is in chronological order.
  • I've opted, instead, to create a separate subsection devoted only to translations. — Kpalion^(talk) 21:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Minor details

• The ISBN 83-226-0598-2 does not appear to be valid: perhaps it is incomplete and should have a 978- prefix.
  • This is the IBSN printed on the book. It may be incorrect, but there's nothing I can do about it. — Kpalion^(talk) 22:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• "use a still different title" should perhaps be "use yet another title".
  • Done. — Kpalion^(talk) 22:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• Consider linking sweet and sour, a combination used also in Medieval European cuisine.
  • Done. — Kpalion^(talk) 22:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• Lead image needs US PD tag on commons, presumably PD-Art|PD-old-100 would do it.
  • There are now two tags, a U.S. and a non-U.S. one. — Kpalion^(talk) 22:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• Not convinced that 'Bibliography' is the best section heading here; what is given is a list of editions, so 'Editions' would be the most straightforward heading.
  • Done. — Kpalion^(talk) 22:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• "Bohemia and Hungary^[34] (both part of the Habsburg Empire)." might be written "Bohemia and Hungary, both part of the Habsburg Empire.^[34]"
  • Done. — Kpalion^(talk) 22:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

In addition (not GA)

• The graphical timeline is an interesting touch but with the repetition of names in both Polish and English, and the arrows from the labels, it comes across as somewhat cluttered, and the image is inconveniently wide especially for portable devices. Perhaps it might use letters for the cities, i.e. K for Krakow, L for Lwow, etc. This would allow the arrows to be dropped and the image to be made narrower. This is not a GA requirement.
  • I've already tried using abbreviations, but eventually decided I didn't like them. I may still play around with timeline, but it will take some time. — Kpalion^(talk) 22:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• The article is not mentioned or linked in Pan Tadeusz. You might like to add a mention there, which would help to tie the article into the encyclopedia. This is not a GA requirement.
  • The Pan Tadeusz article is currently so woefully short, that mentioning the cookbook there would probably put undue weight on a minor aspect of the poem. — Kpalion^(talk) 22:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

All right, I'll link it.

Summary

This is a fine article well up to the required standard, and the comments address only minor aspects of structure and style. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Chiswick Chap. Please see my responses to your comments above. — Kpalion^(talk) 22:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC)