Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ann Cook (cookery book writer)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 26 June 2024 [1].

Ann Cook (cookery book writer)

edit
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 10:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Cook is an interesting footnote to culinary history. A professional cook who certainly knew her stuff, she only wrote her work Professed Cookery because she was short of cash – and so that she could blacken the name Hannah Glasse, the sister of the local squire who drove Ann and her husband into bankruptcy. Despite the vitriol in parts of her book, it also contains some fantastic writing about cookery with recipes that work well in the modern kitchen. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc

edit

Its a fine article as it stands and I had left a few suggestions at the peer review. But I would like to leave a few more. Marker for now. Regards MSincccc (talk) 10:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Cooks managed the Queen's Head inn on behalf of the landlord, Thomas Pye.
  • The second edition of Professed Cookery was published in 1755, which included a 'Plan of House-keeping' in its contents.
  • In 1739–1740, during the Lent circuit of the assizes, Sir Lancelot Allgood, who held the positions of high sheriff and Member of Parliament, sent a message to the Black Bull that the visiting judge and his party required six bottles of good French wine, and that John Cook should order them in.

The version uses "required" which is more formal than "wanted," fitting the tone for an FA-class article.

  • A second edition of Professed Cookery was published in 1755, which added a 'Plan of House-keeping' to the contents.

I will be happy to extend my support to the nomination once the above suggestions are addressed. Nothing more to complain about. Regards MSincccc (talk) 11:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions. I think the extant text is stronger in these places than the suggested alternatives, but thank you. - SchroCat (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat But I have done a cross-check using multiple other sources. In British English and for Wikipedia, the suggested forms prevailed over the present ones. I will not complain with the rest of the prose. But the above alternatives are finer. Do you still wish to retain the present version of the suggested alternatives? If yes, you are free to do so as its entirely at your discretion. However, please do leave a response for your choice. That would help me to not make similar suggestions in future. Looking forward to hearing from you. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you've been checking, but the alternatives here are not an improvement on the current text. For example, "required" is not a better word than "wanted" - neither superior in meaning or formality; it is a different word with a different meaning (the OED is always a good port of call in such situations and this confirms what I am saying). - SchroCat (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat Well no need to clog about a word then. The article is a well-written one and deserves to be an FA like Glasse's. Support. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by JennyOz

edit

G'day SchroCat, I was in middle of the PR but just had to go cook some eggs and when I came back it was gone! So here instead are my first comments...

Short description

  • I haven't read much about these but my limited understanding is to use a brief description without repeating info in article title, (acts like a dab in case there are more than one similarly titled), so remove name etc? I'd suggest something like '18th-century recipe and housekeeping author'

Dodds

  • Dodds is introduced and linked x3. In Life section "the historian Madeleine Hope Dodds considers", in Essay section at "described by the historian Madeleine Hope Dodds as a", and in Historiography and legacy section at "came into the hands of the antiquary Madeleine Hope Dodds, she"

Life

  • who held positions high sheriff and Member of Parliament - positions of?
  • resulting a feud between the two - in a feud?
  • where they ran the Queen's Head inn - cap I? or not proper name?
    Not a proper name. From what the sources say, it was just the Queens Head. - SchroCat (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • its title page stated that Cook was a lodger at the house of the cabinet maker Mr Moor, in Fuller's Rents, Holborn, London - add price six shillings?

Professed Cookery

  • A later edition, published in 1936, comprises extracts of the 1760 printing and was edited by one Regula Burnet - do we know publisher?

Essay conversions eg

  • one imperial quart (1,100 ml; - better as litres? output l gives "one imperial quart (1.1 L) of cream" ahh but loses the US fl oz?
  • one-half pound (0.23 kg) of butter - better as grams? output g gives "one-half pound (230 g)

Recipes

  • "Professed Cookery" contains recipes for fricassees - swap quotes to italics
  • preserved foods, including pickles, jams, wines and sweets[61] and sausages - pickles and jams? (ie reads as if wines and sweets are part of preserved foods?)
  • An eleven page index was included - hyphen eleven-page

Household management

  • A Plan of House-keeping - above x2 has cap K ie A Plan of House-Keeping
  • the management and care of poultry - needs live poultry?

Historiography and legacy

  • Gadus morhua, - add italics

Defaultsort

  • Anne - remove e

Category

  • Category:Writers from Newcastle upon Tyne - (it's where she was for first editions)

Template:English cuisine

  • need to add her to template

That's it for now though I wasn't as thorough as usual FA list:) so may have more questions later. Regards, JennyOz (talk) 12:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers JennyOz. All these covered; if you've got any more, I'd be delighted to hear them. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kusma

edit
  • Lead: "an edited edition, with selected recipes, was published in 1936" First, "an edited edition" is not a great expression. "A revised edition"? "A selective edition"? Also, this breaks up the chronology. The 1936 edition could come at the end of the lead together with some of the legacy.
    I’ve renamed it. That part is not chronological, but thematic and deals with the publication history. - SchroCat (talk) 04:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Life: is it of any interest why/how we know the various things that are considered probable or possible?
    As it relates to where and when she was born, yes, I think it’s not just of interest, but important. - SchroCat (talk) 04:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, then could you add who said she was from County Durham / that her husband might have been Catholic and why they think that? —Kusma (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a couple of the main sources that have it and no-one has published any dissenting views on the point. I'm not sure going into the why they think that would be illuminating. - SchroCat (talk) 09:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am mostly curious whether there is any basis for speculating that the husband was Catholic. —Kusma (talk) 11:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's mostly small threads connected together. The details are clearest in Archaeologia Aeliana if you want to check, but there is nothing encyclopaedic in the pathway to the conclusion. - SchroCat (talk) 09:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at the source, and agree it could be distracting to say too much about the husband here. However, there is also direct speculation that Ann Cook herself was Catholic: "There are several passages in Mrs. Cook’s book which suggest that she was a Roman Catholic (as for example that she usually calls the curate of a parish the priest, and though she knows that a licence was required for a sudden marriage, she makes the priest procure it instead of the bridegroom)", so I think it would be better to extend the speculation to both. —Kusma (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Added. - SchroCat (talk) 14:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources: The "archived" links for the OED are useless distractions; nothing useful has been archived.
    I'm not sure what they are distracting readers from (or even how they are distracting), but they are useful. - SchroCat (talk) 04:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At the archived links, I get "Thank you for visiting Oxford English Dictionary. To continue reading, please sign in below or purchase a subscription. After purchasing, please sign in below to access the content." I do not see that as useful. —Kusma (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've forced a resave on most to give the information, but the archive is being stubborn on a couple, so I'll keep trying to trick it into saving the version we need. - SchroCat (talk) 09:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, all done. - SchroCat (talk) 05:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Much better :) —Kusma (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to come! —Kusma (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments. - SchroCat (talk) 04:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is again a lot of "edited ... edited" in the "Professed Cookery" section, which could benefit from some elegant variation.
    I see only two uses of "edited", one of which I've reworked. If I've missed something, please let me know. - SchroCat (talk) 09:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not something for you to do right now, but Professed Cookery should be an article, even if it was apparently a lot less widely read than The Art of Cookery Made Plain and Easy.
  • There is a bit much focus on criticism of Glasse compared to what we learn about the actual recipes in Cook's book; in particular, is there any critical reception of these recipes? What do the food historians find most interesting?
    There isn't anything more that hasn't been covered, which is a great shame, really. - SchroCat (talk) 09:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then the "valued by historians of [..] food [..] history" might be a slight overstatement? —Kusma (talk) 11:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not according to the sources. I think (and this is just my OR) that part of the value is in the criticism of Glasse. - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, quite well written so it is difficult to find much to complain about :) An interesting life story that became a cookbook rivalry. —Kusma (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Since it seems others are taking up the prose, I'll look at the sources! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I prefer to put efns before references, since there's info in the efns that makes more sense to be directly adjacent to the sentence
    • I prefer after (refs support the sentence; refs at the end of the efn support the efn). They are adjacent enough to the sentence not to be a problem to anyone. - SchroCat (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough then, you have good rationale ~~~ MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the sources "publishing location" parameters have both the city and state (e.g. Champaign, Illinois), whereas others just have the city (e.g. New York); is there a particular reason? I prefer consistency in either having both city and state or just city
  • Proper nouns in source titles should be italicized- I'm looking at the British Library web source "The Art of Cookery – Title page", where The Art of Cookery should be italicized

All other formatting looks good. Spotcheck now, choosing randomly but trying to vary between books and web sources (AGF for offline/paywalled sources):

  • Buck 1979: how does the cited page show that historians "value it" for social history? If it's just showing that a historian cited it, I worry about OR violations
  • Cook 1760: there's so many that I only checked some, but all looked good

More to come MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for this - much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rest of the spotcheck:

  • Mennell 1996: good
  • Trager 1996: good with the other refs next to it
  • Dodds 1938: good
  • British Library webpage: good
  • Hoare 2014: good

Source review passes- excellent work! Also, I have an FAC open and would appreciate any comments you have if you get some time- thank you! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

750h

edit

Hi SC i'll leave some comments. 750h+ 07:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since the third and fourth lead paragraphs discuss around the same thing you might consider merging them (given the length of the article).
    Fair enough (although they are slightly different in the subject), but done. - SchroCat (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1739–1740, during the Lent circuit of the assizes," ==> "Between 1739 and 1740, during the Lent circuit of the assizes," (I find the uses of an en-dash a bit unusual)
    It's not between the two years: the Lent assizes took place during Lent on one of the two years. - SchroCat (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "What the Cooks did not know was that Pye was a cousin of Allgood; in 1746" ==> "The Cooks did not know that Pye was a cousin of Allgood; in 1746" (conciseness)
    Yep; much better. - SchroCat (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the 1936 edition, edited by Regula Burnet, Cook's personal history was limited solely to Professed Cookery and no further details were known." I'm a bit confused by this sentence. Which book is it talking about when it says "In the 1936 edition"?
    Reworked a little: How does that look? - SchroCat (talk)

That's all i got. nice work! 750h+ 08:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, 750. I'm much obliged. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. willing to support 750h+ 15:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

edit

I peer reviewed the article on its way here and my (few) quibbles were attended to. Nothing to add after rereading for this review. The article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria and I am happy to support its elevation to that status. Tim riley talk 15:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

edit
  • a best-selling cookery book, The Art of Cookery Made Plain and Easy in 1747.: comma after Easy.
  • a revised edition, with selected recipes, was published in 1936: what does selected recipes mean in this context? Doesn't someone select the recipes for all cookbooks?
  • Any chance of straightening the lead image?
  • Sir Lancelot Allgood, who held positions of high sheriff and Member of Parliament sent a message: comma after Parliament
  • Capitalisation: we have Black Bull Inn but Queen's Head inn
  • much of their remaining goods: most of, surely, as goods is plural? You couldn't say "much of their remaining possessions".
  • any terms of easy settlement: easy terms of settlement sounds more natural to me, but is there a technical sense being employed here?
    Reworked in a slightly different way. - SchroCat (talk) 09:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • John was taken to a debtors' prison within a month of their arrival in the new town. Nothing further is known of John Cook: simply of him?
  • it appears that in order to earn money, Cook wrote The New System of Cookery: we know that she wrote it, so this is better as "it appears that Cook wrote TNSoC in order..."
  • When the work was republished in 1754 it was under the title Professed Cookery.: less verbose as "the work was republished in 1754 under the title Professed Cookery"?
  • in the Groat-market: ... in the what?
    That was it's name. It was the wheat market - "groat" is a Northumbrian word for wheat. - SchroCat (talk) 09:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the cookery book, The Art of Cookery Made Plain and Easy in 1747: comma after Easy, and advise a cookery book, as there are lots of them.
    I think the definite is okay here, as we're talking about a specific book. - SchroCat (talk) 09:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With the commas, it reads as limiting to me: "we visited the school and met the teacher Mr Smith" (one of many) is different to "we visited the school and met the teacher, Mr Smith" (the only one). I'd always rephrase the first one to "met a teacher, Mr. Smith", which keeps the same meaning but reads as neater to me -- that, however, is personal taste. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, removed the comma. - SchroCat (talk) 09:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • of the 972 recipes in the first edition, 342 had been copied or adapted from other works without attribution: do we need an at least here? After all, we can only count the ones we can catch.
  • as such she ridicules the idea of a lady being in a position to teach cookery to a professional: I think it's worth clarifying here that lady means "aristocrat" rather than "woman".
  • Glasse's recipe for French Barley Pudding: no capitals, surely, as it's a generic dish name?
  • many of her own recipes are unnecessarily extravagant and wasteful.: this is a statement of opinion ("unnecessarily", "wasteful"): can we couch it as such, something like "are considered..."?
  • the oysters will baste to pieces, and beyond Art to keep them on the spit".: I'd add [it is] before beyond Art, as the sentence isn't quite grammatical as it stands, but I can understand you may be hesitant to mess with the quotation.
    I hate messing around with quotes too much, but okay - added. - SchroCat (talk) 09:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The OED dictionaries end up with lots of nested brackets, and I think probably goes into excessive detail for an article on the cookbook, not (e.g.) the rock codling. Suggest paraphrasing and abbreviating the definitions in body text (e.g. rock codling (a type of fish)): you can always give the full definition in a footnote if you think it's really important.
Many thanks UndercoverClassicist: all sorted, except 1. The straightening of the image, which I'll do shortly; and 2. where I've pushed back above. Many thanks as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very happy to support -- though NB one query still outstanding above, which shouldn't get in the way of promotion. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
missed that, and apologies. Happy to discuss further if you want. Thanks, as always, for the comments and suggestions. They are always welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PMC

edit

Putting myself down here, I doubt I'll have much as it looks like it's been throughly reviewed by others, but it looks like an interesting read. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the lead, I might say when the feud started, just so the reader has an idea of how long Allgood pursued it
  • "in Dodds's words "a rebel, a rogue and a villain"." I think this needs a comma after "words"
    It's okay without in BrEng - SchroCat (talk) 07:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it appears that Cook wrote The New System of Cookery in order to earn money, which was on sale by February 1753." the "in order to earn money" here throws the flow of the sentence off (it reads to me like it's saying the earning money was on sale). Any way to move it to a different spot? Maybe to the next sentence?
  • Why gloss over New System in the lead? It's a bit confusing as the lead gives 1754 as the publishing year (and says there were 3 editions) but this seems to contradict that
  • "The book also contained a poem...and essay..." was this included in the 1st edition? Waiting to Mention it after the 2nd edition makes it read like it was a later addition
  • I agree with Kusma that Professed Cookery might be better as its own article; there's quite a bit here (free second FA, if you think about it :P)
    OK, I'll try and get round to drawing up a new article once I'm done with what I'm working on now. - SchroCat (talk) 07:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have "best" 3 times in 2 successive sentences, starting with "This includes the best ways to manage servants..."

That's it! A well-written article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, PMC. All done, except for a couple where I've left comments. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, happy to support. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

edit
  • "There are no records of the dates or locations of her birth and death." seems randomly situated. Perhaps relocate it to the second sentence of the first paragraph?
  • Is there a page range for Burnet? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Gog, The page range is added, the sentence about the dates has been removed. I prefer to keep the opening para entirely about the notability, and she's not notable for having unknown dates. On reflection, it's not really a leadworthy sentence either - plenty of people had no known dates from that period, so having it up the top of the article felt a little odd when looked at critically. Happy to be persuaded otherwise tho! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ann_Cook_(cookery_book_writer)/archive1&oldid=1231191138"