Isabella Beeton


Isabella Beeton was a remarkable woman. Although thought of as a cook, based on her 1861 work Mrs Beeton's Book of Household Management, she was actually a publisher, writer and editor. A tragically short life—she died at the age of 28—her impact has lasted over 150 years and her book has never been out of print. This article has had a revamp recently, been through GAN and has had a further expansion since then. A push for FAC is considered, unless reviewers advise otherwise. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from the Dr

Lede

"although all the recipes were plagiarised" -in the lede. I gather you mean "though". I think I'd split it a bit, write it as "In 1857, less than a year after the wedding, Isabella began writing for one of her husband's publications, The Englishwoman's Domestic Magazine. She translated French fiction and wrote for the cookery column, though all the recipes were plagiarised from other works, or sent in by the magazine's readers."

Early life

"Benjamin died when Isabella was four-years-old,[c] and Elizabeth, pregnant and unable to cope with raising the children on her own while maintaining Benjamin's business, sent her two elder daughters to live with family members; Isabella was sent to live with her recently widowed paternal grandfather in Great Orton, Cumbria, although she was back with her mother within the next two years.[6]" -too long, try "Benjamin died when Isabella was four-years-old,[c] and Elizabeth, pregnant and unable to cope with raising the children on her own while maintaining Benjamin's business, sent her two elder daughters to live with family members. Isabella was sent to reside with her recently widowed paternal grandfather in Great Orton, Cumbria, though returned to her mother within two years."

Marriage
  • All done, bar the last: I think "they employed" is probably better, given we don't follow up on anything to do with him later. - SchroCat (talk) 11:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Beeton book

"In its first year of publication, the book sold 60,000 copies.[72] The food writer Annette Hope thinks that "one can understand its success. If ... young ladies knew nothing of domestic arrangements, no better book than this could have been devised for them."[73] It reflected Victorian values, particularly hard work, thrift and cleanliness,[74] and Christopher Clausen, in his study of the British middle classes, sees that Isabella "reflected better than anyone else, and for a larger audience, the optimistic message that mid-Victorian England was filled with opportunities for those who were willing to learn how to take advantage of them"." to

"In its first year of publication, the book sold 60,000 copies. It reflected Victorian values, particularly hard work, thrift and cleanliness. Christopher Clausen, in his study of the British middle classes, sees that Isabella "reflected better than anyone else, and for a larger audience, the optimistic message that mid-Victorian England was filled with opportunities for those who were willing to learn how to take advantage of them". The food writer Annette Hope wrote that if "young ladies knew nothing of domestic arrangements, no better book than this could have been devised for them".

The rest of the above paragraph on reviews I think in some places you could also paraphrase a little in places so it flows a little better and reads less monotonously.
Legacy

Looks good overall but I think you could paraphrase some of the quotes and further reduce the use of semicolons in places to perk it up a bit. When quoting somebody I tend to avoid saying "and further added" or "and further went on to say" and paraphrase in part so you can explain their opinion and then quote in one without the addition. It reads much better that way IMO. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Cheers Chris, many thanks as always! I think I've covered all the points (but whether I've done it properly is another matter!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim

This is a most enjoyable piece, and an excellent addition to the series on food writers and books contributed by other editors, notably Chiswick Chap. Perhaps one of these days you and I might work on getting Mrs David's article up to FAC? – Tim riley talk 21:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Afterthought: Riley brain catching up with Riley eyes. Has something like Isabella's original never been reprinted in our authenticity-obsessed era? If I went into Foyle's now and asked for a copy of "Mrs Beeton", what would I be likely to get? Tim riley talk 21:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks indeed, Tim: your suggestions all adopted. I'd love to have a go at Mrs David - an excellent subject to bring up to speed (and I wouldn't mind chancing my arm with Eliza Acton too!) In terms of what is currently available, the answer at Foyles would probably be "which one?"! Ward Lock has been subsumed into Orion Publishing who several books of subject-specific recipes (cakes and bakes, soups and sides, etc). On the other hand, Amazon offer a wider range, including the original (which I picked up free on Kindle, for example), as well as abridged versions, updated versions, and reprints of goodness knows what edition! - SchroCat (talk) 09:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tim, yes, I've brought a series of classic cookery books to GA, though Mrs B.'s hasn't made it there yet. Some of these may be worth mentioning. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Further to the Foyle's exchange, above, I think it would enhance the article if we made clear, perhaps at the end of the first para of the Legacy section, just what is generally available today, as outlined by SchroCat, above. Tim riley talk 22:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Chiswick Chap

Elizabeth David's discussion of why Eliza Acton's Modern Cookery for Private Families was eclipsed by "imitators so limited in experience, and in capacity of expression so inferior?", (Ray, Elizabeth, ed. (1968). The Best of Eliza Acton. Longmans. pp xxiii–xxvii) might be worth mentioning - the comparison between the two women is I think interesting and relevant, given the conflicting judgements of sales and history. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, CC: this is one bit I need to add to the article (along with Tim's publication history response), which should also go some way to dealing with JM's comment about it being "a little light on the criticism". Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

What a great topic. I'm told that my great-grandmother was in service as a young woman and copied out some recipes from a battered old Mrs Beeton cookbook for my mother when she was a young woman. Probably a fairly typical story!

My father remembers being given a copy by his former headmaster as a wedding present. It was something the headmaster would do for all his old boys, which would have been a fairly expensive habit, I presume! - SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've checked Hughes, who doesn't (she nicknames them after the headmistresses), but I'll check the others this evening to see. - SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having checked the other sources there are no names for the instiutions. - SchroCat (talk) 12:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pausing for now- back shortly. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Addressed all but a couple down to here (where otherwise noted). Excellent comments and I thank you for them. - SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly, although the criticism is only a modern development (from David on), and she still has some defenders, such as Bee Wilson, who thinks that "It has recently become fashionable to disparage Mrs Beeton." (My OR is that the criticism seems to focus only on the fact the recipes were copied from elsewhere, rather than much more substantive. Clarissa Dixon Wright is the only one who goes beyond that criticism, but hers is more a snobbish stance against the burgeoning nouveau riche middle class at the time than anything else.) Still, the criticism is covered in the article, and it covers the main points of the denigration. - SchroCat (talk) 12:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few edits; please double-check them. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Josh - hugely appreciated. I've covered nearly all your points, hopefully satisfactorily. There are still a couple that I need to look at a little more closely, post-PR, including the additional sources you list in the final point. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 10:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BB

Mainly fairly minor prose issues; I've also made a few tweaks myself:

Lead
Early life
Marriage and career
Mrs Beeton's Book of Household Management and later
Obiter dicta: I spotted this but wimped out from mentioning it. Only pedants and old fogies object to the singular "they", and as a paid-up p. and o.f. I happily line up in BB's attack shadow. Let us keep the flag flying quam diutissime. Tim riley talk 22:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If a singular "they" or "their" is good enough for Jane Austen, it should be good enough for us. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy

Important article on a significant personage. Brianboulton (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many, many thaks Brian. I've covered off the straightforward grammatical and prose changes as suggested, but will work a little more on adding the bits of extra info you mention (financial hubris, etc). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Crisco

  • The sources vary slightly on her role in such an ephemeral process, and both are mentioned, without any consensus as to where the line should (or even could) be drawn. - SchroCat (talk) 14:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not covered in the sources I'm afraid. - SchroCat (talk) 12:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I think with the mix of readers' recipes and already-published recipes there is a wide spread which gives it the reflection of what was there, but the sources don't differentiate between the origins of the recipes. - SchroCat (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not expanded upon in the source, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 14:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think so (although I may be very wrong on his notability); there is no entry on him in the DNB, which is one measure. - SchroCat (talk) 12:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing I can find, but I'll have another look at the sources to see if there is anything else there I can use. - SchroCat (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Chris. As always your comments have proved most useful. All covered, except where I've commented otherwise. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto

Can I start off by saying sorry to everyone above. I have come into this late, but thought it was a recent PR. As such, I conducted some fixes to the first section, but I'm unsure if any of these compromise any of the comments made by my friends above. If they do, call me an interfering git, and please feel free to revert. I will provide some comments shortly, some of which, I envisage, will be me asking Gavin to attribute some of the quotes, particularly in the first few sections. CassiantoTalk 22:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cheers Cass. You're not too late - we've not been running a week yet. I look forward to your comments when they come in. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a lot of "soup". It could be reduced by one where you say: "The recipe for the soup..." to "The recipe...".
  • ""Soup for benevolent purposes" is wrapped in quotation marks, but why? I see a note here, but it doesn't tell us who said this or if this was a name of sorts. Do you know where this came from or if this was an unattributed name for something?
  • Could all winters, by their very nature, be considered as "bitter"? "Particularly bitter" would stand out better.

Everything looks great! I enjoyed that a lot! CassiantoTalk 19:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Cass - much appreciated and all tweaked accordinly, I hope. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Many thanks to all who took part in this hugely useful and constructive PR. The article is much changed from ten days ago and is tighter, stronger and in much better shape than it was previously. Thanks again and I'll take a few days to re-read for any futher points before going on to FAC. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]