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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 05:45, 9 March 2007.

---

Grab a trencher, pass the frumenty and dunk a sop or two in the nearest cup o' wine, because here's a culinary delight sweeter than a galley worth of hypocras!

It all began with my accidental discovery of the none-too-humble subtlety when reading Timeline. From then on my fascination with medieval cookery just kept growing, and the result was a full-fledged gastronomical orgy of academic indulgence. I've plowed well over a thousand pages of literature by now, and considering how delightfully scrumptious the topic is, there's bound to be more in the form of various sub-articles (one has already been spawned). This is primarily a self-nomination, but I would like to thank Choess for his thorough and highly motivating GA-review, Andrew Dalby for his informative explanation on wine making, Geogre for a round of copyediting and miscellaneous pointers, Itinerant for providing useful URLs on calorie statistics, and, of course, all the users who have helped with everything from spell-checking to the occasional factual tidbit.

I'm sure that there might be a lot of things that need to be tweaked and copyedited. There's probably even gaps in the coverage, but I've reached the point where I feel that it's time to put the article through an FAC, as the peer review was unable to provoke anything but automated comments. So, without further banter, I bid you to do your worst! Peter ^Isotalo 21:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What is meant by "Even though many of these plants were eaten on a daily basis by peasants and workers, they were generally considered less prestigious than meat."? The opposition you are drawing is a bit confusing as the two statements seem to be mutually supporting. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I read it as "peasants and workers had to eat the plants by necessity, but considered meat preferable" - I'd argue it's stating the obvious perhaps, but then I've no in-depth knowledge of conscience vegetarianism in the middle ages :-) Joopercoopers 01:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most veggies were at the bottom of the prestige scale, and that's what I was trying to say. I'm open to suggestions on how to make that sentence less oblique. Medieval vegetarianism was very rare and practiced only by necessity on non-meat days by those who couldn't afford fish or by severe religious ascetics.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you able to find any more sources? You seem to have a lack of citations. bibliomaniac15 02:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  See the replies to Kosebamse and Mocko. Peter ^Isotalo 09:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Another comment--is "apertif" spelled so intentionally or is that an error? Christopher Parham (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC) Done[reply]

  Of course not. It's Swedish... :-) Peter ^Isotalo 23:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - like the article generally, love the images. But there's a general paucity of citation that concerns me. I'd echo the earlier comment - the article needs more thorough citation to meet FA standards. - Mocko13 03:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Regarding the last two comments, it would be helpful to be more specific as to what requires a citation beyond what already exists. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  There is not a single paragraph or section that isn't thoroughly referenced. They're just not hacked up into tiny^[1] little^[2] pieces^[3] that cite individual sentences^[4] or fact statements.^[5] The exception are two rather rather specific statistics (spice imports and meat consumption). My impression from the literature is that this is not a particularly controversial topic and the facts included in the article are, to the best of my knowledge, agreed on by most scholars in the field. If I had found substantial disagreement, I would have noted this. I don't see why I need to present a pedantic blow-by-blow account of my own reading schedule unless there are concrete controversies. Peter ^Isotalo 09:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Minor objections and comments (objections retracted, Kosebamse 18:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  1. The article should be moved to Medieval cuisine of Europe or something like that. Although the introduction makes it quite clear, and the connotations of "medieval" suggest that it's about European history, the title should reflect that as well.
  2. The abovementioned paucity of citation is in this case not too problematic, as this article is unlikely to generate much controversy, so it is not necessary to reference each and every detail. Nevertheless, it seems to rely on not too many sources and though I don't doubt their credibility, it would perhaps look better to have some more.
  3. Comment: The use of old-fashioned language in some sentences is quite acceptable in such an article, as long as it does not get too esoteric (although I am not a native speaker, I found it quite digestible).
  4. Comment: the pictures are just beautiful. Kosebamse 08:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. This issue has been discussed at the talkpage, and I believe it was addressed satisfactorily. The application of the term "medieval" is per definition something confined to Europe. You won't find references to, say, "medieval Chinese cuisine" or "medieval Arab cuisine", because the chronology applies to a stage of development rather than a specific time period applicable to all cultures.
  2. These are fairly exhausting sources. They are very thoroughly referenced in their own right and provide what to me gives the impression of a very good overall view of the topic. What's lacking is generally coverage of culturally peripheral regions like Scandinavia and Eastern Europe, due to the simple fact that most food scholars don't read Old Church Slavonic and all that. However, the article is trying to be reasonably general, and I already moved the regional cuisines to a separate article to not make it look as if I was ignoring, say, Scandinavia and Poland.
  3. Do let me know if you feel that the language is too high brow.
  4. Thank you! I was very pleased to find that many of them were readily available online and even at Commons. Peter ^Isotalo 09:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Ad 1. Not really convinced; although I agree that "medieval" strongly suggests "European", I don't think that this notion is so widespread that one can rely on every reader's historical literacy, so to say, so for clarity the other title would be preferable. Ad 2. I am not really worried about the sources, it's just that the current cultural climate here is one where unsourced statements are frowned upon. I certainly would not refuse FA status because of this. Ad 3. No problem here, I do like the writing. And again, its really a fine article and fascinating to read. Kosebamse 08:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm still very reluctant to ad "of Europe". One of the strongest arguments for the current title is quite simply that there's nothing do disambiguate it from. If someone produces references to "medieval periods" of non-European cooking (Byzantine and Muslim cooking on the continent feel like reasonable exceptions), I might change my mind. As for unsourced statements, let those with concern point out specific issues and we'll see if they need to be smoothed over or not. Peter ^Isotalo 11:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  As a non-specialist, 'medieval...of Europe' sounds very redundant to me. Opabinia regalis 17:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article is packed with insight, and is well researched, comprehensive and beautifully illustrated. Ceoil 09:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments well-written and fascinating article (I had no idea that what they call the most important meal of the day was considered weak!), but I'm not completely ready to put myself in the support column just yet. see below

• The 'meals' section is focused almost entirely on upper-class fine dining. I assume that's because there's much more written about the subject than about smaller and more pedestrian events, but a short paragraph on anything known about lower-class meals would be good, and meals eaten alone/with just the family rather than as a large group. Comments below
• I've heard before that medieval peasants had an unusually nutritious diet due the variety of grains they ate in the 'less desirable' breads. Any of your sources mention this? Comments below
• Call me ignorant, but is a 'sick dish' something eaten by those who are ill, or does the phrase refer to something more specific? Done
• 'The English Assize of Bread and Ale of 1266 listed extensive tables where the size, weight, and price of a loaf of bread was set...' - this could be clearer as 'was regulated' or similar; without clicking the link, 'set' could be read as 'described or presented', implying that it was a descriptive rather than prescriptive document. Done
• 'The importance of vegetables to the common people is exemplified by accounts from 16th century Germany...' - I'm not one of those cite-every-jot-and-tittle people, and I assume this is in reference to the footnote that appears in the last paragraph of that section. But since this is explicitly talking about interpretations of primary sources, a footnote here would be a clearer way of demonstrating the proper source to consult for more information; I don't think it's a problem to use the same footnote twice in a row if they're different paragraphs. Same goes for '...mentioned in recipe collections' below. Comments below
• I'm not sure that hedgehog or squirrel meat is considered 'inappropriate' - certainly not common, but I hear of people eating squirrel meat. (How much meat can there really be on these guys anyway?) Done
• Maybe explicitly state that fish and seafood were not considered 'meat' (assuming they weren't)? I think the most common current usage places fish, at least, in the meat category. Comments below
• Image:Monk sneaking a drink.jpg is overlapping text on my screen; anyone else having that problem? Comments below
• Poor people drank watered-down vinegar as a beverage and not for some sort of health effect? Ewwwww.
• Beer 'was a humble brew compared with more southernly foodstuffs like olive oil and wine' - I can't quite parse this sentence. Southernly = higher prestige, apparently, and wine > beer, but how does olive oil fit in? Hopefully people weren't drinking that too? Done
• '...but with without hops.' - one of these must be a typo. Done
• The paragraph debunking the 'spices disguise spoiled meat' myth is a bit overwritten. Done
• 'A wide assortment of waffles, wafers eaten with cheese and hypocras or a sweet malmsey in northern France as issue de table ("departure from the table").' - this sentence no verb. Done
• The caption for Image:Pietro Lorenzetti 001.jpg mentions the hand gestures illustrated, but I didn't see them discussed anywhere in the article. Comments below
• See also list contains items that were linked in the text. Personally, I think this is useful, but I'm surprised nobody's griped about it yet, as it's apparently against the current manual of style. Comments below Opabinia regalis 03:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very attentive comments, I must say. I've ticked off the pointers I believe I've addressed by tweaking prose. The relevant changes are here Here goes:

• The problem with descriptions of meals of the poor is of course that they never got their own etiquette books nor did they have as lavish banquets. I've simply not seen much detail in descriptions of a humble dinner in a small commoner's household. But it's interesting that you mention the idea of eating alone, because that one is mentioned, and it was not something that was really kosher. Medieval society was a collective affair and not eating with one's fellow man was considered suspicious. I'll add a comment on that later.
• I've not seen anything about high-fiber bread being a boon specific to commoners, so I can't say if it's reasonable or not. On the other hand, it would seem as if this might have been negated by the fact that the diet was probably very monotonous. There's also the estimates by many scholars that the majority of the population suffered from a constant lack of vitamin C due to the lack of fresh fruit and vegetables.
• I had problems with Image:Monk sneaking a drink.jpg overlapping text when I made a printout of an earlier version. It doesn't appear in online versions for me, though. I've seen it happen sporadically in other articles, but I have no idea why, how common it is or what to do about it.
• The hand gestures of the nuns was more of a bonus associated with the picture. I didn't feel it was entirely relevant to include in the text. A bit like the long comment on the picture of the Duke of Berry.
• I would like to insist on keeping the See also-links. One can't assume that someone checking it out has read the right sections, and these are only helpful in guiding those who want to read about related topics to the related and highly relevant articles.

I'll get back to you later concerning citations on the importance of vegetables and the specification of non-meat meats.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice edits. That's interesting that eating alone was considered 'suspicious'. On the matter of the poor, even if there's nothing really to say about their meals, a sentence to that effect would be useful to demonstrate that the omission is due to the absence of evidence. Still, it seems that even nobles must have had meals that were not huge feasts? (BTW, I had a quick look to find where I might have heard the nutritious bread thing, and can't find anything reliable making that claim, so I suspect it's one of those cereal-box-type 'facts'.)

The image overlap problem is usually solvable by adding a ((clear)) immediately before the image. The problem is, that may produce a very large amount of white space for some browsers/resolutions. Your edits seem to have rearranged the text enough that the problem doesn't appear for me anymore.

I entirely agree on the usefulness of well-chosen see also links; I hope the anti-see-also-section fad has died down. But I thought I should mention it. Opabinia regalis 17:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There ya go. I think that should clear it up (along with a few other tweaks). Perhaps even a bit wordy, but I'll leave that to others to decide.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, support. Now I think it's time for a snack... ;) Opabinia regalis 01:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional Support I did a copyedit but it is generally very well-written. The lack of citations is a problem. Where chapters are cited, and a span of pages, there should really be multiple citations of the exact pages. Some paragraphs have no citations. I would generally cite anything that makes you question whether such a statement could actually be true. Overall, this article is full of really interesting stuff and I would suggest everyone here read it. I learned a lot. I will support this after some of my comments below are addressed, BillDeanCarter 09:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC):[reply]
  • In the Wine section it might be a good idea to mention glogg which is a perfect description of a mulled wine. It's popular in Scandinavia. Comment below
  • It might be a good idea to create a general Further information section at the end of the article, and possibly add a book version of Le Viandier that one can get a hold of. Include the external links section as well. It would be a jumping off point to actually make some medieval cuisine recipes afterwards.-BillDeanCarter 06:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Comment below[reply]
  • This sentence doesn't make a lot of sense: "Regretfully absent from most sources is the abundance of details about the humbler meals of the elite, and just about any information about the eating habits of the common people or the poor." Why is the abundance of details absent from most sources? Do you mean that there is an abundance of detail on elite eating habits, and none about common eating habits? I would also imagine that the elites meals were not humble.-BillDeanCarter 07:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Comment below[reply]
  • This phrase starts well and ends grammatically incorrect: "The collective and hierarchical nature of medieval society was reinforced in these rules of etiquette where the lower ranked were expected to help those in a higher position, the younger the older, and men women."-BillDeanCarter 07:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Comment below[reply]
  • I'm guessing this comment about the baker's wife isn't a joke: "The tables were later supplemented by adding the cost of everything from firewood and salt to a dog and even the baker's own wife." It deserves a cite of the exact page from whichever book it came from. It also leaves me with many questions.-BillDeanCarter 07:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Comment below[reply]
  • In the Cereals section the two images should swap positions. The image of the swindling baker should go alongside the third paragraph. Is the reason it hasn't been done because the swap looks awkward?-BillDeanCarter 08:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Comment below[reply]
    • A good round of comments (and a nice copyedit at that). So here are the replies:
      • Glogg is going to be merged with mulled wine any day now, so I'd like to hold off on the link.
      • I've been thinking about adding a list of some of the more well-known medieval recipe collections just before the See also-links, but I'm holding off on that until I've actually checked out details on them. A further reading-section seems like a good idea, but I'm not sure how to format it. Including the external links section in that seems a tad non-standard. (I mean, aren't external links just "further information" in of themselves?)
      • I tried fiddling with the baker pics, but it just doesn't work. To me it just looks awkward no matter how much I shuffle them about. The current layout was the one that seemed to work best, and considering how prominent both images are relative to the amount of text, I don't think readers will be confused as to which paragraph they correspond to.
      • Could you specify what you believe to be ungrammatical about the "The collective and hierarchical nature..."-sentence?
      • Medieval sources were written by and for the elite. That's a problem that all historians encounter to one degree or another. There are no guides on etiquette for the poor because they couldn't afford them, and most of the time they couldn't even read them. Same goes for the cookbooks (which were actually recipe collections included in books about general dietetics and medicine most of the time) that weren't intended for the cooks, but their literate masters. Cooks learned the trade through apprenticeship and experience, not by reading literature. The accounts of the common man that do remain are mostly incidental ones in various chronicles, legends, illuminations, etc. They are very sparse and are quite indirect. I have thought about mentioning it in the article, but I found it rather difficult to know exactly where in the text to insert such disclaimers without repeating them. There's also the concern about not making it seem overly academic. The "humbler meals of the elite" was an attempt to point out that the elite didn't sit down to banquet every single day. I'll try to rephrase it.
      • What do you feel is unclear about the specific details about the Assize? What are the questions that are raised by the statement? And why is a 4-page citation at the end of the paragraph not to be considered sufficient?
        Peter ^Isotalo 14:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • What are the "men women"? Are the younger, the older, and the "men women" those who are in a higher position? The end of the sentence makes no sense.
        • I'm asking myself why the baker's own wife had a price tag on her life? Was it a joke? I mean I thought this might be vandalism at first. I think this is exactly why you want to have more citations in this article. On which page of which book did you read this? It's an unusual fact.
        • Regarding comment, then the arrangement of images is fine.-BillDeanCarter 14:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I thought the wording of that sentence was a valid way of removing verb redundancy, but I'll rephrase it if you feel it's too oblique.
          • A wife was family and families cost money for the (heh) bread-winners, which were, of course mostly men. Scully quotes W. Duncan Reekie's book Give Us This Day... on the topic and the reason for all the odd additions was a successful lobbying campaign by the London baker's guild. I think it's a bit harsh claiming that the statement puts a "price tag on her life". It doesn't appear all that different from how salaries are still set in societies where men are expected to bring home (pardon the pun) the dough. The difference is that this explicitly defined the state of affairs rather than obscuring it with false neutrality. But I can certainly switch "dog" and "wife" to make it less distracting.
            All in all, I think this edit should take care of your concerns. Peter ^Isotalo 20:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Final say Okay, I Support as done above. I still think that there are way too few citations, but I see you've made two edits to solidify your style of citations, so I'll let my gripe go. All my other comments have been met. Thanks and good luck. I look forward to reading other articles from you.-BillDeanCarter 20:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - a very filling repast, best consumed by being cut into pieces by one's eunuchs and eaten with a delicate golden fork. -- ALoan (Talk) 01:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, first I have no issue with the citations; but there are some other things that need work.

1. The lead is not a summary of the main text (see WP:LEAD), for example it discusses class differences at length and they aren't really mentioned again during the article; which also make me wonder if the article is talking mostly about the dietary habits of the nobility, pheasants or a mash-up of both (comprehensiveness issue). Ideally the article would have a section on how food was regulated between the classes - that isn't in the lead.
2. Some of the giant paragraphs - like the seafood one - could be broken into more readable chunks.
3. Quotes should not be in italics as per the MoS.
4. All the items in the see also section are in the text; therefore this section is not needed.

--Peta 01:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• One at a time, then:
  1. It might be difficult to notice off the bat, but the class differences are described throughout the article. Give me a few days to look into the rest of your concerns. As for pheasant mash, I'll see if I can find a recipe. ;-)
  2. Other than the seafood, could you specify a bit?
  3. Fixed, I suppose. But I thought it looked good...
  4. Oh, c'mon... What purpose does removing them serve? It's very probable that readers might check out the see also-section without having noticed those links. I suppose this is some MoS guideline, but I find it too harsh. It simply doesn't make the article less useful to repeat a few very relevant links in a section dedicated to it. And those links are very relevant.

  Peter ^Isotalo 07:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Article definitely qualifies. Artaxiad 01:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - nicely done. Meets all criteria. –Outriggr § 02:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support.' Extrememly impressive and easily among our best. Can you bring everything else on medieval daily life up to this quality too? - Taxman ^Talk 03:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I certainly would want to, but I can never foresee what gets my academic juices flowing. Only time will tell... / Peter ^Isotalo 07:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.