Talk:Hors d'oeuvre/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I'll take this one. Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 15:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many foreign terms are given for rough approximations to hors d'oeuvre (let's call it HdO for short). This is problematic in two different ways. Firstly, this is English Wikipedia, not a dictionary, so it is not usual to provide a catalogue of foreign terms. Secondly, several of the terms are certainly not synonyms of HdO: for instance, meze are served with drinks, not necessarily followed by a meal (i.e. you go out to drink and nibble). Sources would be needed that demonstrate that each supposed synonym actually is such a thing, e.g. a major source like Davidson would equate the terms. Checking "mezze" in Davidson (p. 518), he writes that they are like tapas in Greece and the Balkans (with drinks not meals) but that the Muslim prohibition of alcohol has either extinguished the meze tradition in other countries, or it has become part of a meal, closer to the HdO. This is a very different picture from the glib assumption (meze=HdO) given in the article. What we need is a reliable secondary source for each foreign term to demonstrate its HdO-ness; otherwise, the terms are WP:OR and should be removed.

The shadow of WP:OR falls also across some English terms. Devils on horseback are described in the source (#62) as "party accoutrements", i.e. not HdO. We either need a source identifying them as HdO or the sentence must be removed. I am afraid that the whole article needs to be checked for the same issue.

The lead does not adequately summarize the article. It should be 3 or 4 paragraphs, and should step through the major sections of the article, summarizing their main points. It does not require to be cited provided what it is summarizing is cited; and no new material or citations should be introduced in the lead: currently all six of the citations exist only in the lead. It may be best to delete the lead and start over really; the citations might be worth moving into the article body.

'Origins' relies on a doubtful source for the (doubtful) Russian origin; does the mention of China come from ref #9, Beard, and if so what does he say about it? If not, where is it from? This is a big claim and given the "may be" it needs both more discussion and more evidence (why should the speculation have arisen?). Davidson traces meze (pp. 517-518) to Persia, citing Ayla Algar 1991, so this certainly needs mentioning.

'French etymology' is mistitled, as no etymology is given in the section. Its first paragraph seems to be off-topic, entremets not being HdO, and the mention of service à la française is thus doubtful in the second. The section needs reworking to emphasise the connection with the article's subject.

'English savouries' also wanders from the topic; most of para 1 is irrelevant, as is much of para 2, while the implied equation of savouries with HdO is uncited and arguably incorrect: Davidson (p. 720) says they were at the end of the meal in the 19th and 20th centuries, so not HdO, though possibly so in the 17th ("when it could also refer to a savoury appetizer served at the start of a meal"). I think we could reasonably drop the section altogether, but if you want to explain the 17th century connection then you'd better refocus the section and cite it more appropriately. Note that Davidson does not say savouries were HdO, however.

'American appetizers and cocktail hors d'oeuvres' equates HdO to canapé in US usage, something British and European readers would not have guessed. This needs to be stated and reliably cited in 'Names' as it is a major source of confusion.

'Preparation' says nothing useful and should be removed. Ref #29 is no use without a page number anyway.

'Use' has its first sentence supported by 8 separate pages in ref #31. How can that be possible or necessary? The book seems to be wrongly titled, and to be just a recipe collection, so hardly ideal. Para 2 states an 'unwritten rule' - it doesn't seem to be written in the cited source, at least I couldn't find it readily. The rest of the paragraph is uncited and does not indicate the context, which seems perhaps to be a formal dinner party? Nor does para 3, though the mention of waiters implies very formal dinner (wedding? diplomatic?) or smart restaurant, perhaps. Since HdO variously defined vary with the context, this is problematic. I think what you need to do for the Use section is to define the possible contexts (cocktail party, sit-down dinner party, French restaurant meal, etc) and explain the use in each such context. Right now it seems somewhat random.

The presence of a generalised 'Examples' section, followed by an ambitiously structured 'By culture and language' section is problematic. The first implies a quick breezy article, the second a serious academic one. I'd suggest we ditch the 'Examples' section as too diffuse and inevitably subject to unconscious bias; the topic is clearly better handled in the structured section.

'Hawaii' discusses drinks and Tiki bars which seem to be off-topic. The coverage (longer than that for the whole of the (rest of the) USA is possibly WP:UNDUE and perhaps needs copy-editing for tone.

In Oceania (why the 'In'?) implies there are only 2 HdO in Australian bars. Really? And only 2 in NZ?

Fattoush is said to be Levantine cuisine, so please remove it from 'In Europe'. Davidson calls it a salad (p. 460) so its HdO status is unsourced.

The Further reading section contains only one item, an external link, so it should be moved / merged to External links.

Authors are sometimes given as Doe, J.; sometimes as John Doe; and sometimes as Doe, John. Personally I'd favour the last of these, as both easier for indexing and maximally informative, but any one of the three will do: but please choose one of them and format all the authors the same way.

Some refs like #83, #84 for example are incorrectly formatted. Books and articles should have named authors, publishers and where possible ISBNs; magazine and journal articles require dates, volume/issue numbers, and page ranges. This needs to be done throughout.

You have used short refs like "Dunham 2004" for some of the works in the Bibliography, but not for all. Thus for example refs #35 and #40 cite Cracknell & Kaufmann in full when short form is available. This needs to be done throughout.

Some refs e.g. #18 have full ISBNs starting 978-, while others have old-style ISBNs starting 1-. Please format all the old-style ones in the full form. You can use https://www.isbn.org/ISBN_converter to help with the job.

Nom is not responding to email and has not edited for some weeks. Given this and the amount of work the article needs, I am failing this article now. If anyone wishes to address the comments and resubmit it to GAN, feel free to ping me and I'll take up the reins again. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:30, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]