Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Bacon ice cream/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Bacon ice cream

edit
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like constructive criticism and opinions from others on the subject. I believe the article to be of high quality but that as always there is room for improvement.

Thanks Jenova20 11:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I though this was a fascinating article. It's well-written (the structure, tying together The Two Ronnies, Scott Aldrich and Heston Blumenthal neatly and cohesively, is excellent) and the prose and grammar is generally good. A few suggestions:
  • A couple of sentences in the Notable uses section are unsourced, and the section as a whole needs a bit of an overhaul (why, for example, is the appearance of bacon ice cream on Escai Sucre's menu in any way notable?).
  • There are some sources in the article which don't pass WP:RS, [1], [2] and [3] are blogs, for example, which are user-generated and thus unreliable.
  • There's a smigin of WP:OR in this sentence: they have created a bacon ice cream which tastes like butter pecan - implying that the ice cream was a butter pecan with candied bacon - the source says that one reviewer thought the flavour was similar to butter pecan, but no implication about the concoction of the ice cream is made.
  • The Reception sction needs a bit of work. Nico Ladenis showed his disapproval for the Michelin Star system by suggesting that bacon ice cream shows such a desperate need for originality in very graphic language is a bit euphemistic - say that he compared it to vomit, or simply lose the phrase about his "graphic language". The "debate" in the LA Times doesn't seem to actually have existed - two articles, espousing different viewpoints, were published, but linking them to imply a debate does not seem to be supported by the sources, and constitutes undue synthesis. And does the sentence about "Udder Delight" belong under this heading?
  • Reviewing against GA criteria, it's generally well-written and MOS-compliant; the information is verifiable and most of the sources are sound (some improvement needed, though); its coverage is appropriate; different viewpoints are presented without undue weight given to any; it's generally stable (bar the odd vandal) and the image is properly tagged, free-use, and well-captioned. I'd say this only needs minimal tweaking to be a GA.
Now, if you'll excuse me, reading that has made me feel a little peckish... let's see what's in the freezer... Yunshui 雲‍水 10:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking you meant FA right Yunshui? The article is already GA. Thanks Jenova20 16:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I meant GA. But that's because I'm a pillock and hadn't spotted that the article had already passed that particular bar. Let's look at it again from an FA perspective...
  • Engaging, brilliant, professional prose Not entirely. Parts of the article certainly qualify; the Origins and Heston Blumenthal sections are fine. There are some clumsy sentences in the Reception section (e.g. The end result she described as nauseating and "too sickly for words" would work better as She described the end result as nauseating and "too sickly for words"), and the Notable uses section reads like a list that's been reformatted to prose (haven't checked the history to see if this actually happened). The article needs some copyediting, especially in the last two sections, before it would meet the FA standard.
  • Comprehensive I think the article almost passes this criterion; it covers all of the major developments in bacon ice cream history and gives several descriptions of the manufacturing process (without, I'm pleased to see, trying to include a recipe). The origin of the concept could use more definition; if there's more information on the connection to savoury Victorian ice-cream, I for one would be interested to read about it. At present, the implication is that The Two Ronnies originated the idea, but that's not supported in the sources.
  • Well-researched Not that this isn't a well-researched article (25 citations for 17,000 bytes is pretty thorough), but as noted above, not all of the sources meed WP:RS. I think better sources are needed for some of the claims; at present, the references section is a bit bloggy in places.
  • Neutral Several views on bacon as an ice cream flavour are offered with no particular weight being given to any of them, and the article's tone is encyclopedic. It's possible that too much of the article is dedicated to Mr Blumenthal - a whole section (the largest) on a single chef, plus more than half of the Recipes section, seems a bit excessive. I think it would be necessary to emphatically demonstrate that Blumenthal is an integral part of bacon ice-cream history to justify this much coverage. I'd also suggest merging the Heston Blumenthal variation subsection to the main section on him; the fact that his work is described as a "variation" suggests that it's getting undue weight.
  • Stability As noted above, fine.
  • MOS Lead is fine; structure is pretty good (I would expect to see the Origins section as item 1 on the contents list, though, and it might be better retitled as History); citation style is consistent and uniform (using the {{cite}} template).
  • Images As noted above, the one image is fine. In an article of this length, only one image of the product is really necessary (although if free pictures exist showing the ice cream being made, for example, they could perhaps be added).
  • Length Stays on topic and uses summary style correctly. Most FAs I've seen are a bit longer than this, though there's no actual prescription that I know of regarding length. Personally, I don't think there's much room for expansion without the article becoming too tangential.
Hopefully that's a bit more helpful. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very helpful indeed. Thanks Yunshui. WormTT · (talk) 08:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I've got to be honest; I'm surprised this passed a GA review. The organization strikes me as a little haphazard, and it veers off-topic in places. Specific comments below.

Lead:

  • "is a modern invention in experimental cookery" "Modern" is a relative term. I think it is best dropped and an approximate date for the creation of bacon ice cream added later so the reader can judge whether or not it is a "recent" invention. Also, pretty much everything was at one time an "invention" and "experimental". What would be wrong with something more literal like "Bacon ice cream (or bacon-and-egg ice cream) is an ice cream flavour generally created by adding bacon to egg custard and freezing the mixture."?
  • "Although it was a joke in a Two Ronnies sketch" As a U.S. resident, this doesn't tell me a heck of a lot. I gather from the Two Ronnies article that it was a variety show in the U.K. How about something more like "The concept for bacon ice cream originated from a 1973 sketch on the British variety show The Two Ronnies."?  Done
  • "it was eventually created for April Fools' Day." When? How long after the sketch that inspired it aired? Who created it?
  • "Heston Blumenthal experimented with the creation of ice cream". Same problem here; I don't know who Heston Blumenthal is or why I should care. Just a few words of context would help. Also, do you mean he experimented with the creation of bacon ice cream here?
  • "It now appears on dessert menus in other high-end restaurants." High-end restaurants where? Everywhere? Is it more popular some places than others?

Recipes:

  • I really feel like the Origins section should come first. You start off talking about how bacon ice cream was invented in 1992, but we don't learn any of the details until we learn how it is made. Seems odd to me.  Done
  • "only came to the forefront in the 2000s" Came to the forefront of what? Should probably be rephrased.
  • "a standard sweet ice cream recipe, often vanilla but other suggestions include coffee, rum or pecan." Whose "suggestions"? How about something like "a standard sweet ice cream flavor – vanilla, or less commonly coffee, rum, or pecan."?
  • "The saltiness of the bacon will then highlight the sweet flavour of the rest of the ice cream." According to whom? One person may think it highlights the flavor, while another feels it ruins the flavor, overshadows the flavor, etc. Also, why the shift from present to future tense in this sentence?
  • "According to one Wired.com article," Wired.com is a news site, according to its article. Why is it a good source for a recipe for bacon ice cream? Is the author of the article a culinary expert? Also, when was the article published? This gives the reader an idea how new the idea of bacon ice cream was at the time.

Heston Blumenthal variation:

  • This suffers from the same problem as the lead. Who is Heston Blumenthal, and why should I care? This section just starts by telling me how he makes bacon ice cream. Why do he and his recipe get so much attention in this article? Is his recipe now the standard? Is it more commonly prepared than other variants? Why does his recipe merit more examination than, say, the guy who makes his bacon ice cream with a pecan ice cream base, as mentioned earlier in the article?
  • "In his book, The Big Fat Duck Cookbook" Again, a year of publication would be helpful here. How much time elapsed between the ice cream's initial creation – which we still know nothing about at this point – did Blumenthal create his variety?
  • "Considerable time is taken for the creation of the ice cream" How long? How does it compare to the usual preparation time for ice cream? "Considerable" is to general.
  • "This infused mix is precisely heated" What is precise about the heating? Why does it have to be precise?
  • "put through a food processor" Is there a more precise verb we can use here in place of "put through"?
  • "Blumenthal has since updated his recipe" Since when? Presumably, since the publication of his cookbook, but as it stands now, we don't know when that was either. How much time elapsed between his publication of the cookbook and the update? Where was it updated? In a new edition of the same book or in a different book?
  • "to include an addition ten-hour period of soaking the bacon" Presume you mean "additional".  Done
  • "prior to baking" I thought the bacon was roasted.
  • "He has also changed the presentation" From what? We don't have any information about how it was presented before.
  • "Liquid nitrogen" should be linked on first mention.  Done

Origins:

  • "This sketch went on to be included in the "Best of The Two Ronnies" DVD." This is basically irrelevant to the concept of bacon ice cream, isn't it?
  • "Bacon and egg ice cream was eventually created" Eventually? When? We don't find out until several sentences later that it was in 1992. Also, do we know if Aldrich was inspired by the sketch or if it was just coincidence? If so, how did a U.S. resident come to learn of a sketch performed two decades earlier in the U.K.?
  • The article seems to imply that creating some outlandish ice cream flavor became a tradition for Aldrich beginning with his 1982 gravy ice cream. We get a list of other odd flavors he concocted, but the list ends with "in 1991". Were all of those flavors created in 1991, or were they done one at a time on April Fool's Day between 1982 and 1991. If they were all in 1991, what happened in the intervening years?
  • "In 1992, they made 15 US gallons (57 l; 12 imp gal) of bacon and egg ice cream which he gave away free to anyone who would try it." "They" made the ice cream, but "he" gave it away. It isn't clear who "they" is, but presumably if "they" made it, "they" gave it away. Also, "they" made fifteen gallons of ice cream, but they gave "it" away. Don't you mean they gave "them" (the gallons) away? Did they give them away by the gallon? Or did they just give free samples?
  • "Despite their names, the ice creams generally received positive reviews." I suspect it was despite the unusual flavors instead of despite the names. Who gave the flavors positive reviews? Professional food critics? Customers? If customers, did they fill out a survey? How were their opinions collected?
  • "they have created" Why the shift in tense?
  • "implying that the ice cream was a butter pecan with candied bacon" Presumably, we don't know for sure what they made it with? If not, who opined that it tasted like butter pecan or that it was probably made with butter pecan and candied bacon?
  • "The owner had included" Again, why the shift in tense?
  • "where the tasters were allowed to suggest changes and give opinions on the flavour." And they said what?

Heston Blumenthal:

  • Oh, look, we're back to Heston Blumenthal! And we finally figure out who he is and why we should care, although we still don't really know why so much of this article is about him and so little about the other folks who have created bacon ice cream varieties. See what I mean about organization?
  • "Heston Blumenthal is a celebrity chef who applies scientific method to food." OK, maybe it's just me, but I'm not seeing the connection between the scientific method, in its most general sense, and this guy's cooking. Now, if you combine the first two sentences to say something like, "Celebrity chef Heston Blumenthal owns The Fat Duck in Bray, Berkshire, and is famous for creating unusual dishes by following the principles of molecular gastronomy.", I'm buying that, since "molecular gastronomy" (a decidedly cool term) is clearly connected to cooking.  Done
  • "Using his scientific method to create ice cream," There it is again! How about just "He creates ice cream by..."?
  • "Once the mixture is cooked, it should be cooled as fast as possible (Blumenthal regularly uses liquid nitrogen in cooking) while being stirred." This strikes me as an odd sentence. Two sentences ago, we were clearly talking about Heston Blumenthal making ice cream. Now, we are saying "it should be cooled as fast as possible". Well, if he's the one cooking it, that's his problem, right? Then, we have this weird parenthetical about liquid nitrogen, which makes sense to me, since I've seen someone freeze and shatter a tennis ball using liquid nitrogen, but may not make sense to a reader less familiar with it. How about rephrasing to say, "While stirring the mixture, Blumenthal cools it as fast as possible using liquid nitrogen." It flows lots better, and gives the casual reader some idea what the liquid nitrogen is for.  Done
  • "In an article explaining the concept of "flavour encapsulation", Blumenthal points out that flavour is much more intense in encapsulated bursts, rather than being dispersed in a solution." To me, this belongs two paragraphs earlier, when the idea of "flavour encapsulation" is first mentioned, but not explained.  Done Jenova20 11:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the end of the paragraph, we're left to assume that he adds bacon, otherwise, this whole discussion is rather irrelevant to the topic of bacon ice cream. Might be helpful to note.
  • "Blumenthal's bacon and egg ice cream, now one of his signature dishes, along with his other unique flavours, has given him a reputation as 'The Wizard of Odd'" I'd drop "along with his other unique flavors", as "one of his signature dishes" implies that there are others. Also, the creation of the 'Wizard of Odd' nickname should probably be attributed to someone.
  • "In the 2006 New Years Honours List, Blumenthal was awarded an OBE for his services to food." A U.S. reader like myself has no idea what an "OBE" is. Who awards it? Is it rare? Prestigious? Do a lot of chefs get it relative to folks in other professions?  Partly done
    • Your partial improvements have helped. I wonder, though, about the phrasing "Blumenthal was awarded Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire". To me, this sounds like a title more than an award. I would have expected "Blumenthal was awarded the title Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire" or "Blumenthal was designated (as)/dubbed an Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire". To use more familiar terms for me, a person can be awarded an Emmy but they are designated as a Kentucky colonel. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Blumenthal has stated that one ambition is to create an ice cream with flavours released in time-separated stages, for example bacon and egg followed by orange juice or tea. Once he perfects the technique of separating the flavours, he would attempt mussels followed by chocolate." This is only tangentially related to bacon ice cream. If he ever does it with bacon ice cream, then it belongs. Otherwise, not so much, I think.

Reception:

  • "Bacon ice cream has received a mixed reception, as a combination of sweet and savoury flavours it was designed to be controversial." I think this is a run-on sentence.  Done
  • "Blumenthal's combinations have won him awards such as 'Best restaurant in the world'" As designated by whom? I'm pretty fond of a local joint down the street.
  • "three Michelin stars" Out of how many? Or is the Michelin star an award that he has won three different times? Also, neither of these designations seems to have been explicitly for his bacon ice cream, unless I'm missing something. If not, they are much less relevant to this article, if they are relevant at all.
  • After reading the article on Michelin stars, it seems that three stars is indeed a big deal. Still, the award is for a restaurant, not for a specific dish, such as bacon ice cream. You might move the mention of the stars exclusively to the "Reception" section (removing it from the "Heston Blumenthal" section) so that it is only associated with Ladenis' criticism, which does refer back to bacon ice cream. I could see something like "Blumenthal's restaurant received three Michelin stars. In criticizing the entire Michelin star system, rival chef Nico Ladenis singled out Blumenthal's creation of egg-and-bacon ice cream, saying...". I would obviously flesh that out some, but that's the organization of information I would use. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "suggesting that bacon ice cream shows such a desperate need for originality in very graphic language." I saw the note in the GA review about the graphic nature of the quote by a rival chef. I get it, but I think that the narrative should at least parenthetically instruct the reader to see the pull-quote. Otherwise, the connection between this part of the narrative and the quote isn't explicit. Personally, I'd be fine with including it inline. It isn't that graphic, it gives some punch to the article, and it really encapsulates the rivalry between the two chefs uniquely. Of course, I ate a hamburger while reading Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, so you can't always go by me! :)
  • "Trevor White has suggested that the Heston Blumenthal has latched onto a culture where we cannot get enough of the new and are spoiled by choice" OK, who's Trevor White? And was he talking specifically about bacon ice cream or about Blumenthal's cooking overall? If it is the latter, this article really seems like it is veering off into being an article about Blumenthal, not bacon ice cream.
  • "Janet Street-Porter is highly critical of Blumenthal's cooking philosophy, explaining that it was pretentious." Who is Janet Street-Porter? Without knowing, we might surmise that she's just a bad cook and that's why her attempt at recreating Blumenthal's ice cream went awry. Also, there is a shift in tense within this sentence (i.e. "is critical" to "was pretentious").
  • "The Delaware "Udder Delight" ice cream maker, Chip Hearn" Oh, we know his name. Why didn't we mention it earlier instead of calling him "the owner"? What does the fact that he created the ice cream as a gimmick have to do with its reception?  Partly done

Notable uses:

  • "it appears on the menu at Espai Sucre in Barcelona" I assume this is one of the "high-end restaurants" mentioned in the lead, but without any context, I don't really know that.
  • "with descriptions such as "innovative" and "spectacular"." Where are these descriptions? On the menus in the restaurant? In reviews of the restaurant's bacon ice cream? Why doesn't this restaurant's variety of bacon ice cream get as much space in the article as Heston Blumenthal's?
  • "In the United States, bacon was one of the themes for dessert at the Fancy food show." And? Did someone there make bacon ice cream? If so, who? How did folks like it? By the way, I'm not familiar with the "Fancy Food Show". Who sponsors it? How often is it held? Who comes to it? What do they do there? When was bacon dessert the feature there?
  • "In 2006, two separate contestants created versions of bacon ice cream in the reality series Top Chef." And? Did they win? Did the judges like it? What did they say about it? How were their creations the same? How were they different? How did they compare to Heston Blumenthal's, since he is apparently the be-all-and-end-all of bacon ice cream chefs?
  • "Andrew Knowlton, a judge, dismissed it as not original." Interesting. This seems to indicate that bacon ice cream has become rather commonplace, relatively speaking anyway, yet all we have is scattered references to it being served New York, Delaware, Barcelona, a few cooking competitions, and, oh yeah, at Heston Blumenthal's place in Berkshire. I'm wondering about the broadness of coverage in this article.

I hope this doesn't come across as too harsh. I really was looking forward to learning a lot about bacon ice cream in this article, and I was kind of disappointed. I learned a little about how it started, a little about how certain people make it, and a whole lot about some guy named Heston Blumenthal that I had previously never heard of. This could be a really cool article, but I just don't think it's there yet. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 19:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Acdixon, I'm stunned by the effort you've put in here and will endeavour to address everything as soon as I can. For now, all I can give you is my heartfelt thanks. I couldn't have asked for more and I'm flabbergasted. WormTT · (talk) 19:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's easily a month of work there...I'll help out if i can Worm Jenova20 20:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so glad to hear that you found this useful. I was worried I would come off as overly negative. I've been on the receiving end of several of these, and I know there is a fine line between constructive criticism and being unnecessarily snarky and pedantic. Glad to see you don't think I crossed that line. I'm just starting to get into content reviewing. Gives me something to do while my FACs languish for the apparently mandatory month and a half before they draw enough comments to pass. I'll keep this on my watchlist as long as I see periodic activity, but if you need to move it elsewhere so you can continue to work after the PR closes, just let me know where to watch. This is an irresistably interesting topic, although it's unfortunately too far out of my area of expertise for me to be much help in actually expanding the content. I would love to see it get a five-star treatment and maybe make the front page one day. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 21:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't look through all of the comments, but in regards to your first one about the usage modern and experimental, that is what Heston Blumenthal is known for. [4] [5] Perhaps it would be useful to follow up with the mention of gastronomy or molecular gastronomy (if a stronger linkage between Bacon ice cream and molecular gastronomy can be shown). Currently the article only uses molecular gastronomy to describe Heston Blumenthal's cooking, with small linkages to the ice cream in the blockquote that refers to "flavour encapsulation". I'd be happy to help as well if you would like it Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'm focussing on my other possible FA candidate (Doom Bar), and I'm away from Friday for a little over a week, so I'm not going to get this done short term. There's an awful lot of really good suggestions by Acdixon, so if either (or both) of you want to put any into effect, please do. Might be a good idea to stick a {{done}} after any points you do, so we don't end up re-working anything. I'll have a look at the structure when I get back if either of you find that too daunting.
Acdixon, there is a possibility you went slightly over the line towards harsh - but I don't see it. When looking at something for FA, you either get harsh now, or harsh later, and since yours was so full of constructive help - it was absolutely what the article needed. WormTT · (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Bacon_ice_cream/archive1&oldid=1136085589"