Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Elinor Fettiplace/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) 14 July 2024 [1].

Elinor Fettiplace

edit
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another cookery book writer from history for your entertainment. This time it's an Elizabethan lady whose manuscript was handed down through generations and it was over 380 years between writing and publication. – SchroCat (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF

edit

I'll review this soon. Hog Farm Talk 16:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • In footnote h, shouldn't "fettiplace" be capitalized?

I'm sorry, but I think I'm going to have to regettably oppose on the grounds that I don't think there's really a sufficient need to have a separate article here, rather than a section at Elinor Fettiplace's Receipt Book. About half of the article is about the book.

Taking a further look - the content for Fettiplace's biography is supported by footnotes 1 - 20. All but four of those citations are to the Fettiplace/Spurling cookbook. Of those four - Clark supports a monetary conversion, Pevsner and Historic England support a description of Appleton Manor, and Dickson Wright supports a statement about the customs of guest feeding at Christmastime. As none of these statements are actually about Fettiplace, we're at a situation where we have a potential FA biography where the entire biographical content of the article is sourced to a single source, and I don't think we can have an article compliant with the FA criteria in that case. If the Spurling/Fettiplace book is truly all that is written about Mrs. Fettiplace biographically, then I don't think there's a basis for a second article separate from the one about the cookbook.

This is a remarkably well-written article, but I think there's issues here that are too foundational. I recognize that "this subject is fundamentally incapable of being turned into a featured article due to the nature of the underlying sourcing" isn't exactly an actionable oppose that you can work with, but I will let @FAC coordinators: be the judge as to if this oppose should be discounted or not. Hog Farm Talk 14:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Hog Farm, Thanks for your comment; I've sat on this article for four years wondering about FAC, mostly because of the same point as your comment. I decided to run with it after looking at it critically: it's mostly from two sources, rather than one, albeit both are by the same person. One is from Spurling's book; the other is from the ONDB entry she wrote (although Dickson Wright was speaking specifically of Fettiplace, rather than general Christmas traditions for well-connected families).
    I would argue that despite the biography being from two sources/one person, it still fulfils the criteria as it is still a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature", given there are no other reliable and high-quality quality secondary sources that examine Fettiplace's life (as opposed to her cookery book). If there were other such sources, I would hold my hands up and withdraw straight away, but Spurling's two works constitute the full biographical output on the subject.
    Fettiplace was a separate entity to her book, with a rich and full life that went beyond keeping a cookery book, so I really do believe quite strongly that she should have a separate article from her book. I'm happy to let the co-ords mull this over, as well as anyone else who wishes to chip in. - SchroCat (talk) 14:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My first thoughts as a FAC coordinator and a Wikilawyer are that any article is required to meet the FAC criteria and "the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles". "I don't think there's really a sufficient need to have a separate article here" does not fit under either, IMO. However, "it should be AFDed" does. There is no requirement that the article be AfDed, but a reviewer could base an oppose on an opinion that a nominated article would or should be. If Hog Farm cared to tweak their oppose into this format - perhaps arguing that it is a content fork or fails separate notability - that would be valid. Currently I might draw the inference that that is what they are basing their oppose on, but linking it explicitly to a policy or two would help me as a coordinator. And would overcome the this "isn't exactly an actionable oppose that you can work with" issue. Hog Farm, fancy doing that? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild - Yes, I feel strongly that this is a WP:CONTENTFORK. I also disagree with the idea that the two Spurling works should count as separate sources - see note 4 of WP:N where it states "Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source." I do think this article is a net positive to the encyclopedia and are appreciative of SchroCat for working on this, but especially after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (where a nest of content forks, some of which were FAs, was all redirected) I just can't support a content fork based on the work of a single author for FAC. I don't want to cause any hard feelings, but I just can't support this on principal. Hog Farm Talk 19:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you found any reliable sources on Fettiplace’s life that have been missed out? If not, then it’s a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". I would disagree strongly that it’s a content fork. Writers like Fettiplace had a life apart from their works. We may as well just dump a whole stack of articles and get the women writers back in the kitchen with no real examination of their lives or the context of their works. - SchroCat (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but we're just going to have to disagree on this then. Hog Farm Talk 19:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. There are now three sources that deal directly with Fettiplace's life, putting it outside the WP:N restrictions (ie. it meets GNG guidelines);
  2. As someone has pointed out below, WP:ANYBIO comes into play, which puts the onus more towards inclusion than not (although there is some wiggle room). As this article has a corresponding ODNB entry, there is a strong case for inclusion, which would render an AfD moot. - SchroCat (talk) 07:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The ANYBIO argument is compelling; I'm going to strike my oppose for now. I hope to be able to finish my review soon but the next several weeks will be very busy for me no guarantees on when I can get to this. Hog Farm Talk 14:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I look forward to the review. - SchroCat (talk) 16:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was also buried in Sapperton's church." - he was literally buried inside the church?
  • "When her husband was absent, the family estate, was interested in modern cookery," - is something missing here?

I think that's it from me. Hog Farm Talk 22:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hog Farm; these two tweaked and sorted here. Thanks- SchroCat (talk) 06:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"His memorial stone in St Kenelm's Church outlines his status from the view of her importance and ancestry" - should this be at St. Kenelm's Church given the phrasing change made for the similar concern I raised above? Hog Farm Talk 00:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source says "in the church" - a mark of his wealth and position. - SchroCat (talk) 07:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it could be made a bit more explicit that Rogers had wealth and position (presumably derivative from Elinor) as I would have expected it to be with her marrying a man described in the article as a commoner. I do think I can support here though. Apologies for taking so long to finish this. Hog Farm Talk 13:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 'wealth and position' point is my OR only (sorry - I really should have made that clear in my comment), and - again some more OR - it may have been a result of her wealth and position, rather than his. Unfortunately, the sources are sadly lacking on any description of him. That may not be too surprising, as we're looking at a non-notable individual who died over 400 years ago!
Many thanks for the review, and no worries about the timeframe - it was all worth waiting for. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
  • "in the Vale of White Horse, (then in Berkshire, now in Oxfordshire)." - don't think the comma after Horse is needed
  • "Elinor had two sisters—both younger—Frances and Dorothy" - could simply say "two younger sisters"
  • "with farming area" - this doesn't seem to make sense, are there words missing?
  • "and across approaching Herefordshire" - this doesn't really seem to make sense either
  • "Spurling concludes Fettiplace was" => "Spurling concludes that Fettiplace was"
    According to the current edition of Fowler's Modern English Usage, "Omission of the conjunction that is standard"; it's not needed and just personal preference. - SchroCat (talk) 07:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the social historian Janet Theophano suggests Fettiplace began" => "the social historian Janet Theophano suggests that Fettiplace began"
    As above - SchroCat (talk) 07:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were remedies for a bad back (11), insomnia (7)," - what do these numbers mean/indicate?
  • "manuscript have survived from the Poole's manor at Sapperton" => "manuscript have survived from the Pooles' manor at Sapperton"
  • That's what I got - a very interesting read! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Chris; much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

Support from TR

edit

I peer reviewed the article and my few queries were dealt with then. A handful of new quibbles after rereading for FAC:

  • "Their eldest child John was born in 1590" – this needs a couple of commas: "Their eldest child, John, was born in 1590", otherwise they had other children also called John.

No further questions m'lud. Happy to support: the article seems to me to meet all the FAC criteria – it's a splendid read, well proportioned, thoroughly referenced, evidently balanced and impartial, and nicely illustrated. Tim riley talk 08:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the above: all sorted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from UC

edit
  • The Sapperton church memorial photo makes me slightly sad: it's a lovely photo, but just a bit squint to really suit our purposes. It might be an idea to ask on Commons whether someone could take a front-on image, focusing particularly (if this is possible) on the depiction of Fettiplace? It would then make an excellent lead image (perhaps even in an infobox, at the risk of starting a fight...) -- while not a hard-and-fast requirement, it is good to have an image of the subject in the lead of a biography if we can.
    I’ll put in a request, but I’m not sure it’s known which of the relief statues is actually Elinor. - SchroCat (talk) 04:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • and the surname given as variously as Fettyplace, Feteplace, Phetiplace, ffeteplace and Ffetiplact, among others (note a): I think we need is given or else and with the surname. I'd apply MOS:WORDSASWORDS to these names as well, as we're talking about the names themselves rather than the person who held them.
  • upper class land-owning farming family: if one hyphen is good, two are better: upper-class should have one for the same reason that land-owning does.
  • In common with many ladies of the Elizabethan era, Fettiplace wrote a manuscript book, now known under the title Elinor Fettiplace's Receipt Book: precisely how many other ladies wrote a manuscript book now known under that title?
    Many will have made receipt books, but I think we have to give the full and formal name of the book, given it was wasn't named in the 380 years between being written and published. - SchroCat (talk) 08:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes: this is a phrasing problem. Suggest "... wrote a manuscript book. It is now known..." UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, done. - SchroCat (talk) 05:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • until it was handed to the husband of the writer Hilary Spurling.: I'd put a date on this. We do put a ballpark on it in the next sentence, but it's odd to make the reader wait.
    We don’t know when it was given to Spurling. One presumes the 70s or 80s, but all that is known is that it was published in 1986. - SchroCat (talk) 04:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fair enough: could we say "in the twentieth century", "the twentieth-century writer..." or similar? Otherwise, could we move the publication date earlier in the sentence? UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, done. - SchroCat (talk) 05:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a lot of dashes in the first paragraph of "Life", which makes for a slightly breathless, Emily-Dickinson feel. Could easily and more concisely do Elinor had two sisters—both younger—Frances and Dorothy as Elinor had two younger sisters, Frances and Dorothy, for example.
  • with farming land down to Wiltshire: I would suggest farmland: there's a slight infelicity here brought on by the grammatical (though not meaningful) ambiguity as to whether farming is acting as a gerund ("the farming of land") or an adjective ("land for farming").
  • farming land down to Wiltshire: the cadence of this bit is wonderful. Could perhaps add a map of the West Country here? Might also wish to reorder a little (assuming that it is Herefordshire and not Hertfordshire you mean): you've taken us on a lovely ramble south-east from Gloucestershire, landed us in Berkshire, then quite sharply yanked us back to the Welsh borders.
    I'll think about a map, although without knowing the extent or boundaries of their land, a map is of rather limited use. I've reworded though, so it moves more logically. - SchroCat (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The family was well-connected within the upper classes: we wouldn't normally use a hyphen here, as the compound modifier isn't in apposition ("it was a hard-won victory" but "the victory was hard won").
  • Suggest giving inflation or context to the monetary amounts (I think her dowry was a lot of money in those days?)
  • Two of their daughters died as infants and a third aged 16.: MOS:NUM would like consistency.
  • Their son Henry was born in c.1602: in circa is a tautology, but I'd advise not using abbreviations in flowing text anyway and saying in about 1602, born around 1602 or similar.
  • It is possible there was a fourth daughter, but the point is unclear: can we footnote the reason for the confusion?
  • The cite on Spurling and Fettiplace needs a look: I can see what you're thinking here, but the parameters are stretching to breaking point. We can't have a work co-authored by a C20th author and give it an original date in the C17th. While the manuscript was published then, the edited volume published by Penguin wasn't (it would be like me putting "[c. 750 BCE] on an edition of the Homeric Hymns) Suggest only crediting Fettiplace as the author and using the |editor= or |others= parameters to explain Spurling's role? If Spurling wrote a contribution, I'd cite it separately to the book itself and use the |contributor= param. This would also avoid the current ambiguity as to whether we're citing Spurling's research or an autobiographical passage by Fettiplace: the latter would be a dicey under WP:HQRS and WP:PRIMARY.
    I've separated out the introduction into a separate entry; the main text we have to leave as both Fettiplace and Spurling. The book will give some background from Spurling, then a recipe from Fettiplace, then more discussion from Spurling, so it's input from both of them intertwined throughout. Still, it's now clear the introductory essay from Spurling is now a separate entry in the sources and citations. - SchroCat (talk) 09:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a tricky one: I think your solution here is pretty good. I suppose the only thing to suggest is using the |loc= parameter or similar in the footnotes to indicate which author is "speaking" (e.g. to mark Spurling's commentary with "author's note to page 10" or similar). UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s not an author’s note, though, or at least to describe it as such would be misleading. It’s within the main text of the book. I think we could go too far in identifying the author when the text is so intermingled, and think what we have may be the best option. - SchroCat (talk) 05:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't seen the text itself, but surely it's clear which of Fetterplace or Spurling is "speaking" at any given point? The issue here is that one of those voices passes WP:HQRS and one doesn't: Fetterplace is not independent of Fetterplace, and so the entire book would have to be used strictly within WP:PRIMARY, WP:ABOUTSELF and so on (which it currently isn't), unless we can demonstrate to the reader that those concerns don't apply to the part of the text we're citing. Is there not some form of Spurling's commentary, editor's remarks, introduction to... and so on that would be close enough for the purpose? UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not ignoring this! I’m at friends this weekend and away from the text. I think I know how to sort this, but need to work on it when I’m back with the text. - SchroCat (talk) 10:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK: all now sorted, showing it's mostly Spurlig's text we're reliant upon, but also noting where Fettiplace is being quoted. - SchroCat (talk) 14:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're inconsistent about who gets an introduction and who doesn't: Pevsner does, even though we'd expect an architectural historian to be giving opinions on architectural history, but e.g. Charles Estienne and Henry Danvers don't.
  • Being picky, there's no such thing as being "II* listed": we always say e.g. "Grade II* listed".
  • Is there a language tag for early modern English? I can imagine these quotes would play hell with a screen reader.
  • she continued the practice even after she married a commoner and he had died. His memorial stone in St Kenelm's Church outlines his status from the view of her importance and ancestry: is this Edward Rogers? I'd spell it out if so.
  • Details of her death are unclear, but it was in or after 1647: again, I think it would be nice to share with readers how we know this, if only in a footnote.
  • Spurling concludes Fettiplace was an "efficient and practised manager" in the way she ran her household and, when her husband was absent, the family estate, was interested in modern cookery, and had a "cautious and considerate approach" to dispensing the medicines she prepared: this one runs on a bit; I find it loses its coherence slightly after ran her household. Suggest breaking up a little.
  • Sir John Horner, who was immortalised: I think immortalised might be a bit flowery for an encyclopaedia.
  • I'm not sure I see the point of the aside "To wash gould and coloured silk, but I'm very willing to be convinced.
  • Sir Walter Raleigh provided a recipe for "Syrup of Tobacco", used to sooth lung trouble, or curing a long-held cough, and "Tobacco Water", and John Hall, a physician and the son-in-law of William Shakespeare, provided a method of stopping nosebleeds: the two "ands" (each meaning something slightly different) make things awkward here: I think it would be wise to split this sentence up.
  • Among the other medicinal entries included in the book, were eleven remedies: no comma here.
  • including in around Oxfordshire and Berkshire in 1604: either in and around or simply around. Does Shrewsbury actually say that it was unsurprising? I'm not disputing that it's unsurprising that people would want one, but I'm a little surprised to find one in a cookbook.
  • Spurling concludes that the recipes were, for the time, modern, and embraced new tastes and styles: clearer as modern for the time and [that they] embraced...
  • "Mediaeval" is, while a lovely term, now outdated even in British English.
    Boo. Hiss. - SchroCat (talk) 05:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not quite outdated, though on the way there: this is from the current (2015) edition of Fowler: medieval, mediaeval. The second is now rapidly passing out of use in favour of the shorter version, which is much more often used. In the original 1926 edition the old boy wrote that it "seems advisable" to use the shorter spelling, rendering the ligature as a single letter in medi(a)eval, ph(a)enomenon, (o)ecumenical, p(a)edagogy and so forth, though not, for reasons he doesn't make altogether clear, in homoeopathy, diarrhoea, Boeotian and Oedipus. I've just twigged that we are approaching the centenary of the first edition. I hope the OUP will mark it with a new edition. Tim riley talk 07:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her book contains a recipe for meringues (which she called "White biskit bread"), which pre-dates the appearance in French recipe books in François Massialot's 1692 work Nouvelle instruction pour les confitures.: something's gone wonky here. Suggest "which predates their first appearance in French recipe books, in François Massialot's 1692 work...}}
  • French text needs to be in a language template.
  • Dersin 1998 doesn't strike me as a very scholarly source: I don't recognise the publisher but it has the general feel of a school textbook to me.
    While it’s not an academic text, it’s certainly not a school textbook either. The publishing arm is now closed, but it was part of Time Life. - SchroCat (talk) 04:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy enough here given the weight that it's bearing, which is simply to show that good publications have drawn on Fettiplace's work (though see my note on SYNTH below). UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the work has been used as a source in several such published works: do any of the cited sources actually say that? Per WP:SYNTH, we shouldn't simply cite examples of this happening to support a claim like this, though I'd probably be happy enough with a footnote that says "For example", and then goes through them.
  • Caps: the two news sources use different schemes: MOS:CONFORM would like us to pick one.
  • Consider giving the series for Pevsner's book, so that we can see that it isn't just a one-off book on a county.
  • McGill–Queen's University Press really should have an endash, even though their own website sloppily uses a hyphen.
  • Suggest capitalising the first letter of "receipt and recipe", per MOS:CONFORM if you like but really per Orwell's final commandment.

Another lovely article and certainly the best thing I have read on Elizabethan cookery for a long time. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've covered all these (except where commented on), but please let me know if I've missed out on any. Thanks as always for your comments. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi UC, Just a gentle nudge on this to see if you have any more thoughts or comments?

LEvalyn - including source review

edit

To comment on the content fork issue -- inclusion in the ODNB is an automatic pass of WP:ANYBIO, so I don't see how an AfD could be successful. I suppose it could still be a content fork from a WP:PAGEDECIDE angle-- but that would be more persuasive to me if Elinor Fettiplace's Receipt Book was about the manuscript book, whereas it's actually about a 1986 publication by Spurling, who, e.g., curated & cooked the recipes, and contextualized it in the 20thC study of Elizabethan history.

Anyway, I thought I'd try my hand at some of the source review!

  • I don't have access to the main Spurling book, so I'll aim to check some of the others.
  • Checked ODNB -- all the citations check out.
    • On a normal day the manor would provide for between twenty and thirty people - ODBN says this includes "servants, retainers, and dependants as well as her own two sons and three daughters", maybe give some indication of that? Otherwise my natural inclination is that servants and retainers aren't "counted"! Though Dickson Wright p. 150 says "At least twenty people would have sat down to eat" and is not counting the servants...
  • Checked the citation to Wall 2015, p. 191; looks good. Wall mentions here that the book had the Poole crest stamped in gold on the cover, which is cool.
  • Checked all the citations to Dickson Wright 2011, looks good. The source talks about Fettiplace for quite a while but I think you made the right call in leaving most of this out.
    • Dickson Wright also mentions that the book cover is "stamped in gold with ... the fleur-de-lys of the Poole coat of arms" (p 150), worth including?
    • OK, important: p 149-150 Dickson Wright describes her as a rich heiress with a family fortune from wool, and says the Fettiplaces were heavily mortgaged -- which contradicts the article's description of the Pooles as heavily mortgaged. It also calls this part into question for me, which I find confusingly written to begin with: the dowry may have come with conditions that her new in-laws put their finances in order by selling some of their land. Dickson Wright quite clearly frames the marriage as one where Elinor brings money and the Fettiplaces bring prestige & an old name. Dickson Wright post-dates Spurling quite substantially so I'd ordinarily trust the newer source. Thoughts?
  • I found a Masters thesis not cited in the article, but I think it's an appropriate exclusion. Masters theses are often of borderline reliability, and every single statement about Fettiplace is simply cited to Spurling.
    • However, the thesis says this, which is interesting: "Elinor Fettiplace had enough resources to have the main body of her receipt book written out by the scribe Anthony Bridges, who apprenticed in her father’s house, and only the marginalia is written in her own hand" -- it's cited to Spurling 21, and seems like a detail worth including if you can find it there.
  • Is there some nicer way to format the citation to "Appleton Manor, Appleton-with-Eaton – 1198061". Historic England." ? It looks out of place. But the content checks out.
    It's the same format as the "Receipt and recipe" one, which is how I normally do them: it's the webpage title followed by the publishing organisation. Historic England have a rather ugly way of displaying their webpages, unfortunately.

Other thoughts:

  • Appleton estate was largely self-sufficient should this be the Appleton estate?
  • Footnote H is so useful in clarifying what's known about her death, should it go directly in the article? I don't see much reason to assume she died in 1647

Overall, I feel like I need to be more convinced about who was heavily mortgaged, but otherwise this is a very polished and thorough article. My other notes are not deal-breakers, just thoughts to refine the article further. I expect I will be ready to support soon. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LEvalyn, Many thanks for these: I shall work through them over the course of the day. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks LEvalyn, The changes made with these edits, except the one commented on. - SchroCat (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What a fast response! This looks great, except I feel like the sentence the dowry may have come with conditions that her new in-laws put their finances in order by selling some of their land is still confusing/ambiguous. I keep changing my mind about who the two “their”s refer to. Can you revisit this phrasing? All the rest of my concerns thus far have been addressed. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi LEvalyn, Clarified with a small tweak; how does that look? - SchroCat (talk) 20:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes it clearer to me, thanks! I am happy to support the FA. I don't have concerns about the sourcing based on what I examined, but if there is a desire for more source review of the ones I didn't look at (I am new to FAC and not sure of the norms) let me know and I could check a few more. Thanks for this article! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joeyquism

edit

@SchroCat: I should get to this in the coming week or so; feel free to liberally ping me if I don't somehow get to this in a timely manner. I should also re-mention that Album covers of Blue Note Records is now open for comments at its own FAC - I was very glad to have received your helpful comments on its peer review, and would appreciate if you were to give it another look (or skim - neither are obligatory). joeyquism (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi {{u|joeyquism}], Many thanks. Don't worry: I've seen Blue Note pop up and it's on my list of things to get to. Hopefully it won't be too much longer before I'm there. Cheers -SchroCat (talk) 06:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

edit
  • Books: should Lehman be in alphabetical order?
  • I am not sure that the link in "manuscript book" is helpful.

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Gog, all sorted. - SchroCat (talk) 22:48, 13 July 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/Elinor_Fettiplace/archive1&oldid=1234558070"