# Talk:The Modern Cook

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Modern Cook/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 04:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I am taking this. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 04:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


### Lead
Could we expand the lead?
Done.
Please do not keep citations here. Put the facts in the main text as well and shift the citations there.
Done.
Just curious, do we really need to link "cook", "wafer cone" and "ice cream"?
Since it's the first mention of ice cream in cones, I think so; unlinked cook.
I think French should be linked
Done.


### Context
Is link needed for "aristocrat"?
Maybe, but perhaps it's "common" enough.
and for the Prince and Princess of Wales Links?
Done.


### Approach
Apart from the preface and Francatelli's advice...layout of the kitchen. Source? Or our "cite-the-book-directly" principle?
Done.
Link for ice cream?
As above.


### Contents
Our "cite-the-book-directly" principle? I guess the same needs to be added at least in the last line of "Bills of fare"?
Done.


### Illustration
Should this be "Illustrations"?
OK, it's the same.
All the other engravings are of completed dishes,...illustrations are not identified. Source?
Added.
There is a full-page frontispiece of the author I don't see why we need to link the author here again
Unlinked.


### Bills of fare
 The exceptional royal dinner of 30 June 18411 had sixteen entrées  Wow, how does the earth look then? ;)
Fixed.
For the numbers used, I think you can use digits for all those above 10.
Done, I think.


### Contemporary
every one of his fifty-six dishes Digits please
Done.
are not sweet nor hot "Neither" sweet nor hot?
Done.
George H. Ellwanger wrote in 1902 in his Pleasures of the Table --> In 1902, George H. Ellwanger wrote in his Pleasures of the Table
Fixed.
Gastronomy could be linked
Done.
Can we add the years for the books in this section and the next?
The editions are listed in the Publication section; reviewers are almost always commenting on the most recent edition, so I doubt there's anything to be gained here.
No URL or anything for ref. 3?
Wikilinked.
Alright. @Chiswick Chap: You have been very quick and efficient. The article looks better now. All my issues have been addressed. I would be glad to promote this. Cheers! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 10:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Super, many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)