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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Added notices at User talk:Casliber, User talk:Bibliomaniac15, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink‎, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books, User talk:SuperHamster/Bacon Challenge 2011, and User talk:Kelapstick/Bacon Cabal. -- Cirt (talk) 10:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything Tastes Better with Bacon was promoted to GA-quality in January 2010. Looking for some helpful feedback on how to further improve its quality status, with a mind towards possible FAC discussion in the future. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 10:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "She gained an epiphany.." - ew, odd wording - "had an epiphany" or try something else entirely. "Great idea" or something like it in a thesaurus "Eureka moment"......
• I think I'd combine the Author and "Research" sections into a "background" section or somesuch. They look too stubby as they are.
• There are too many direct quotes - they are jarring to read if too numerous. I'd reword a few and de-quote.
• Multiple recipes from the book were selected .... - "multiple" is a bit ambiguous here. I'd try and use an adjective closer to the actual number - eg "several" or "many" if over 10 or so.
• Some context around the popularity of bacon. So a newer secondary source noting this book and subsequent bacon phenomena in recent years.

I just logged on for a minute and saw this. I will have more time to copyedit or make more suggestions later but thought I'd take a few minutes to get the ball rolling. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks very much! I addressed all of those comments, except for that last one. Do you mean something like creating an Impact subsection? -- Cirt (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Okay, so far, I have located two sources I had used from 2006 and 2008 that are already in the article, and moved them to a final paragraph in the Reception section. -- Cirt (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the sorta stuff I mean. I only skimmed over the article briefly but yes. Any more embellishment I think would be a big plus here. Getting the article to really place the book in the history of bacon's increased popularity. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I created an Impact sect, will try to do some research, and add more to it. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 22:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright - it's generally a good idea to minimise repetition of particular words as much as possible, for instance in the Contents section, "recommend" is used twice in successive sentences. However this might be one of those times when repetition is unavoidable but if possible one should be changed.
• I have a niggling issue with first para of the Background section - to me it just reads a little too much like the author blurb on a book back cover. If it could be buffed at all with other bio detail about Perry that'd be good, but if no material exists then so be it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs)

1. I copyedited the wording in the Contents subsection.
2. I moved some paragraphs around in the Background subsection - perhaps this looks a bit better now?

-- Cirt (talk) 09:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, that reads significantly better. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More:

• Three bacon cookbooks have come out in the last few years: - better to put years (maybe just year range).

• the book "helped drive the trend" of "cookbooks showcasing the versatility of bacon" - better to reword without quotes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs)

1. Sorry, my mistake, I added an end-quote here, this is a quotation.
2. Done, reworded without quotes.

-- Cirt (talk) 10:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, can't think of anything else specific - good luck with it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 10:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Moley. This is one long article. Can we cut it down some? It's a cookbook. It just seems a tad excessive. Here's a pass at the opening:

Everything Tastes Better with Bacon: 70 Fabulous Recipes for Every Meal of the Day is a book about cooking bacon, written by Sara Perry, an author, food commentator, and columnist for The Oregonian. It was first published in 2002 by San Francisco-based publisher Chronicle Books. In this book, Perry manifests her original concept of recipes combining sugar and bacon with over 70 recipes for bacon-flavored dishes, including desserts.

The book received positive reviews in publications including The St. Petersburg Times^[1], The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette,^[2] The Denver Post, ^[3] and The Dallas Morning News.^[4] Recipes from the book were selected for inclusion in The Best American Recipes 2003-2004.^[5][6]

Herostratus (talk) 04:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK, comments go here. I commented on the talk page. It's pretty long and could use a good pruning in general. This article is longer than The Joy of Cooking or Mastering the Art of French Cooking. But it looks like a lot work went into it, so I don't know. There are a lot quotes. If it was me, I would remove all of the quotes from reviews, period. Herostratus (talk) 05:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I have implemented the suggested changes to the lede as recommended by Herostratus (talk · contribs): [1]. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 06:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was easy. As to the rest: Cirt, I can see by your user page that you are a past master at good articles/featured articles, which is an important part of Wikipedia (and will even be more so in future) and which I know very little about. So I would otherwise defer to your judgment about what makes a good featured article. Cheers, Herostratus (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the kind words about my past contributions to this project. It is most appreciated. -- Cirt (talk) 19:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]