Wikipedia:Peer review/Martha Bradley/archive1

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

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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