Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Isabella Beeton

Isabella Beeton[edit]

This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page.

The result was: scheduled for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 12, 2016 by Brianboulton (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isabella Beeton (1836–1865) was an English journalist and editor, and the author of Mrs Beeton's Book of Household Management. Born on 12 March 1836, she married Samuel Orchart Beeton, an ambitious publisher and magazine editor, in 1856. Less than a year later, she began writing for one of his publications, The Englishwoman's Domestic Magazine. She translated French fiction and wrote the cookery column, though all the recipes were plagiarised from other works, or sent in by the magazine's readers. In 1859 the Beetons launched a series of 48-page monthly supplements to The Englishwoman's Domestic Magazine; the 24 instalments were published in one volume as the Book of Household Management in October 1861, which sold 60,000 copies in the first year. Isabella was working on an abridged version of her book when she died of puerperal fever at the age of 28. She gave birth to four children, two of whom died in infancy, and had several miscarriages. Two of her biographers posit the theory that Samuel had unknowingly contracted syphilis in a premarital liaison with a prostitute, and had passed the condition on to his wife. (Full article...)

Most recent similar article(s): Jean-Joseph Rabearivelo on 1 February is the most recent literary biography, but it's a chalk and cheese comparison between the two!
Main editors: SchroCat
Promoted: 23 January 2016
Reasons for nomination: 180th birthday celebration (12 March 1836)
Support as nominator. SchroCat (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I looked at the summary per request. One thing I didn't change (and I don't have a strong preference): some editors prefer "born 12 March 1836" to "(1836–1865)", so that readers will know right from the start why we picked this article. The death date is later in the summary, and I prefer not to repeat years if it's not necessary. But some writers and readers are expecting "(1836–1865)". It's your call. Great article. - Dank (push to talk) 00:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the tweaks. The date format looks odd to me (I've not seen it like that before), but I like the thinking behind it do I've changed over to see how it looks. I'll leave it to others to make the final call on which version to use. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 08:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks odd because Wikipedia reserves the "(born day month year)" format in its biographies for people who are still alive, so at first it looks as though the immortal Mrs Beeton is indeed immortal. For people who have died we give the birth and death dates together. I can see the reasoning behind pointing out why an article has been chosen - although TFA will perhaps get comments asking for consistency and the use of full dates when it is not an anniversary. However, can the birthday be worked into the blurb and the "(born 12 March 1836)" removed? "Born on 12 March 1836, she began writing for The Englishwoman's Domestic Magazine in 1857, less than a year after marrying its publisher, Samuel Orchart Beeton." Or something like that. Bencherlite ^Talk 00:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, you're right of course! Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 00:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC) I've gotta run ... did I get that right? The second sentence is a little long but i can't think how to fix it now. - Dank (push to talk) 00:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC) Okay, that should do it. - Dank (push to talk) 01:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to you both. My only question is whether we need the comma between "editor, in 1856." I'm not sure either way, but happy for others to make the call. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With this format, you could restore the birth-death years, to conform with the standard for biographical blurbs. Brianboulton (talk) 10:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see my job here as setting out the different things that different people have problems with, so that we can weigh pros and cons. First, I want to make sure I understand: are we talking about "Isabella Beeton (1836–1865) was ... Born on 12 March 1836, she married ... she died of puerperal fever in February 1865"? If so I agree that some readers will have a problem with one version and others will have a problem with the other version. We're trying to minimize the astonishment, in some sense. - Dank (push to talk) 14:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you give the dates in brackets, you certainly don't need to say the year of death again - just "she died of puerpural fever at the age of 28". The more general starting question (should we spell out the date relevance e.g. birth or death anniversary in the blurb?) sounds like a discussion for a more widely seen forum than this particular nomination, and I can see pros and cons. Bencherlite ^Talk 14:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I'll post at WT:TFA. - Dank (push to talk) 15:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- The Victorians had Beeton, we got Mary Berry. I think people need to be reminded of this great lady and where it all began. Relevant date and a great article. Cassianto ^Talk 00:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dweller (talk) 09:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]