Wikipedia:Peer review/Martha Bradley/archive1

Martha Bradley

Another cookery book writer from history for another possible FAC run. I wrote this about four years ago and took it to GA, but I've added more and brushed it up, and I think it's mature enough to try for FA now. All comments with that in mind are most welcome. - SchroCat (talk) 11:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

• Aside from her book - Not having said anything about it yet, I think that reads a bit weird. Maybe something along the lines of Aside from the book she published?
• were a handwritten family recipe collection - was?
• haved all been changed
• 10s. 6d - Lose that full stop.
• telling readers "We have - I'd add a comma between readers and the quote.
• , put the publication date at - Lose that comma between the subject and the predicate of the sentence.
• Is Henry Notaker the Henry Notaker you are talking about? If so, add a link.
• makes .. [the book's] - It should be three of them, ...
• In note d, there's a comma missing before Mason.
• I'd use |ref={{harvid|surname|year}} to avoid having the "a" or the "b" in the sources. Winter 2004b reads a bit weird.

  We would still need to have a differentiator between works published in the same year, and the harvid would still end up with two works pointing to the same year. The template documentation for sfn suggests this is the best way to do it - and it's something I've seen in academic works to avoid the same problem. - SchroCat (talk) 10:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• Also, I created a Commons category, so you can add an External links section with {{commons category-inline}}.

That's what I saw, SchroCat. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 10:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks Alavense; I'll work through these shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Alavense; all sorted bar one, which I think is the correct way to do it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes. What I suggested was having the "a" or "b" in the references but not in the section where the works are cited. This is an example, with the references still working properly. But I guess it's no big deal - you can leave it as it is, of course. :) It was a very interesting read. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 10:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments from MSincccc

• Placeholder. MSincccc (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  Lead and Life sections

  • Apart from the book she published, little is known about her life,... Apart from' is commonly used in British English, while 'aside from' is more common in American English.

  According to Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage, "'aside from' is common throughout the Anglosphere". - SchroCat (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Bradley's only printed work, The British Housewife, was released in 42 issues between January and October 1756.[a] It was then released in two volumes in 1758, and is more than a thousand pages long". More concise, shorter and simpler.

  I prefer the current version on the first part as we can explain it was a partwork; I've swapped out the second part, but I'm not convinced it's better, as we don't explain it was in book form. - SchroCat (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  @SchroCat

  • Oxford English Dictionary (OED): "Apart from" is frequently cited in examples of British English usage.
  • Collins tends to label "aside from" as more commonly used in American English, while "apart from" is viewed as standard in both contexts, with stronger associations in British use. [1]
  • Cambridge Dictionary: Both phrases are defined, but "apart from" is more commonly highlighted in examples of British English. "Aside from" is noted to be used in North American English more often.

  MSincccc (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  Looking forward to your opinion on the above. @SchroCat Regards. MSincccc (talk) 10:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

  I've already given it. Should you have any more comments on different points, I would be glad to consider them. - SchroCat (talk) 10:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

  MSincccc (talk) 07:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  @SchroCat Looking forward to your response to the above. I feel that the above changes are justified. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 13:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  I was waiting for more comments so it doesn't have to be done in tiny increments. - SchroCat (talk) 14:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Crisco 1492

• the most interesting of the 18th century English cookery books - no hyphenation in the source (for 18th-century)?
• Although Bradley gave support for some aspects of French dining, she was also happy to criticise their approach for certain dishes, including the French habit of using numerous ingredients that have the effect of hiding the flavour of some elements of the dish. - any way to avoid using "some" twice in the sentence? (It was there thrice, but I removed one instance)
• I've made several changes; please review.

That's it from me. A tight article. That being said, I expect you may face questions about why the article is focused on Mrs Bradley rather than her book.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)