Wikipedia:Peer review/Elizabeth David/archive1

Elizabeth David

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've quadrupled the size of the existing start class article, adding a lot of new info, refs and images, and tidying up existing lists of publications etc. I'd be glad of any comments, but in particular:

• whether to set my sights on FAC or merely on GA (I hope the latter, at least, is a reasonable aspiration)
• how to deal with the lady's name: the unadorned surname won't work in or around paras where her father or husband appear and are named by surname, but "Elizabeth" sounds a bit cosy
• whether my rationales for the two fair use pics (lead and book jacket) are satisfactory and convincing
• is the last section beefy enough?

I'm conscious that the sources rely heavily on one biographer (Cooper in book form and as ODNB contributor) but having read the only other biography I am not inspired to quote it in preference to Cooper. I have dug out press quotes where suitable, and quoted the lady herself here and there. The temptation to quote her more was hard to resist. Bon appétit! — Tim riley (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Casliber

• Go for gold. We'll help you there ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• I think a good way to balance is to include more about the books themselves and reviews (succinctly - needn't be more than a sentence or two). We have some of them lying around here somewhere... which ones do you have.
  • That's a good point. I have all the ones mentioned in the Sources, but not the spices, bread or ice books. Perhaps a short para on each of the books in the legacy section? I'll give this some thought. Tim riley (talk) 08:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
• the flow is great. It is not as clipped prose as an FAC sometimes is but has a nice "English" tone which suits it well. Also the ending with the legacy is great
  • Thank you very much. Anything too discursive can easily be pruned. Tim riley (talk) 08:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
• It doesn't make clear why she split up with Gibson-Cowan - "She and Gibson-Cowan amicably went their separate ways" left me hanging a bit.
  • They had got bored with one another long before they got to Egypt, but stayed together from sheer necessity after losing the boat etc in Italy. I'll add a line to that effect. Tim riley (talk) 08:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

More later.

Folkington/Wootton

I've been looking at the Cooper book and the other one, and wonder whether the article is currently correct in respect of Wootton Manor and Folkington Manor and who owned/lived in which and when. (NB: a photo of ED's grave in Folkington churchyard would be a good addition to the article - no sign of one on geograph - I could supply one, but not before mid-June.) It's late at night, but I can go into more detail tomorrow if required (Dr John Bodkin Adams suddenly appeared on the radar and I got distracted!). --GuillaumeTell 00:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The residential position left after David's paternal grandfather died was, unless I have seriously misread the book (and the other one), that bachelor uncle Roland had Folkington and papa Rupert had Wootton. After Rupert died, Roland could hardly wait to get Stella out of Wootton, and she obliged by remarrying (the old lush from the West Indies) thus losing her life-long right to live at Wootton. Her younger daughters felt the loss very strongly. Cooper pp. 22, 39 and 40. A pic of the grave would be most welcome - thank you! I can possess my soul in patience till mid-June. Tim riley (talk) 08:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Early years - What's in a name?

I changed "Elizabeth" to David, adding a sort of definition at the beginning of "Early years". If you don't like it, feel free to go back to "Elizabeth/Gwynne". -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

This works very well. Thank you so much – an elegantly simple solution. Tim riley (talk) 09:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments A thoroughly enjoyable, refreshing, feel-good read (much needed after the dark chasms of Driberg and Nixon). Just a few minor issues and suggestions for attention:

• The commas are a bit undisciplined in places. For example, in the lead (first paragraph) and, in Early years, after "French civilisation" (oxymoron alert) and after "return to England". A mild cull s recommended
  • Done. Half a dozen or so commas humanely destroyed. – Tim riley (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• "either Welsh or Irish descent" – is "either" necessary?
  • Probably not. An earlier editor went into considerable detail on the matter and I felt a pang of conscience when relegating it to a footnote. The "either" was the result of the pang. Now expunged. – Tim riley (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• Clarify what "This" refers to, in the sixth line of Early life.
  • Done. – Tim riley (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• "she learnt to cook"? The participle feels wrong here. Isn't the normal past tense "she learned"? I'm not sure, though
  • The OED agrees with you. Amended. – Tim riley (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• "she employed Suleiman, a Sudanese suffragi, a cook-housekeeper." How many people is that? Should it be "as" cook-housekeeper, which would clarify somewhat? Can you explain "suffragi"?
  • Redrawn. – Tim riley (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• Apart from other possible considerations, the Minton dust-jacket might be challenged on the grounds of size. As a point of interest, do we know how David and Minton got together as writer and illustrator?
  • We do. Minton was a protégé of Lehmann (there was some talk – probably incorrect – that the relationship was romantic as well as professional). I've already resized the original image, which I uploaded the first time with the settings on my scanner all over the shop, but will further reduce it if required. – Tim riley (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• "David was able to afford to..." Clumsy construction; I'd just say "was able to..."
  • Yes. Good. – Tim riley (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• "Summer Cooking was put on hold for a while. David agreed with Lehmann that her next work should be about Italian food." I think it would read better if this was the last part of the previous section, and I would slightly reword: "This book was put on hold, as David had agreed with Lehmann that her next work should be about Italian food."
  • Redrawn. – Tim riley (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• "escaped from Macdonald" is a bit journalistic, maybe. Neutral = "left Macdonald"
  • Good point. Done. – Tim riley (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• I don't like ascribing opinions to dictionaries. David's ODNB entry is by Artemis Cooper (as you later acknowledge), and I think the view stated should be attributed to her.
  • Done, but does the sentence now creak a bit? – Tim riley (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• Try to avoid repetition of "Chelsea house" in the last two lines of Later years
  • Done, but I'm not sure my redraft reads well. Thoughts welcome. – Tim riley (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

All in all, mouth-watering. Brianboulton (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for these points, all very much to the point. Supplementary queries on the last two points, if you happen to read this. – Tim riley (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Artemis Cooper should be linked at first mention. I don't think you need to spell out the ODNB twice in relation to Cooper, and on second mention she could just be "Cooper". Thus: "Cooper sums up David's legacy thus:" On the Chelsea house business, I would suggest: "who had lived in the top floor of the Chelsea house..." followed by: "She died at her home...", but your version reads OK. Brianboulton (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

All now accommodated, I think (and hope). Tim riley (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)