Talk:Soup/GA1

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 15:02, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: I've obviously got to do this mouthwatering article! Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 18:24, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Comments

The article does a great job of maintaining momentum in the face of what could easily disintegrate into a mere list of dishes. I have very little to say about either the writing or the content, so the comments here are limited to some small suggestions.

• I've made a very few, very minor copy-edits.

• Fine. Tim riley talk 11:41, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

• Last sentence of para 2 of "Name" runs on a bit, with "but" twice. Maybe split it up?

• Done. Tim riley talk 11:41, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

• Name - I note that dipping a sop (of bread) is biblical, "Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon." (John 13:26). Not that the article has to mention this; it could be a footnote, too. Though I don't know if there's an evil connection of dipping the sop.

• Interesting. I don't know either, and haven't seen anything to suggest a sinister significance. I'm putting this mention in the new In literature section. Tim riley talk 11:41, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

• Later:After blowing the dust off my old theology books I find nothing in the commentaries that even mentions the sop, let alone ascribes it any particular significance, though rereading John 13 I'm struck by how cryptic some of it seems. Tim riley talk 12:17, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

• You mention 2 Polish soups, but if I was only going to name one it'd be Żurek, the soup in a loaf of bread... seems both characteristic and close to the ancient bread/soup tradition?

• Happy to mention this. I'll do a spot of reading up (it isn't in the Oxford Companion) and add it to the Sour soups section, I think. Tim riley talk 11:41, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

• Please wikilink Rundell's A New System of Domestic Cookery.

• I shall certainly do, not least to avoid the scorn of the main author of Mrs R's article. Tim riley talk 11:41, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

• I think you should probably link Campbell's soup in the image caption, too.

• Agreed. Tim riley talk 11:41, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

• The article is already succulently satisfying, but I do feel the lack of an "In culture" section (or a narrower "In literature" section). Should readers not be reminded of some famous soups? White Soup from Pride and Prejudice for Mr. Bingley's Netherfield Ball? Or green-pea soup from Roald Dahl's The Witches? (see Kate Young in The Guardian. Or the broth and rye bread of The Book Thief (Kate Young again). You could incorporate Stone soup from the See also list, too.

• That's a top-notch suggestion. I know not of Dahl or The Book Thief (though will not object if anyone wants to mention them) but have added the NT, Chaucer, the Bard, Jane Austen and Lewis Carroll. This section has the additional advantage of not having to end the article with packet soups! Tim riley talk 11:32, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Very nice. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:06, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Images

• All images are on Commons and are plausibly licensed CC-by-SA or PD.

• I think "Open-air soup cooking" should have Bartolomeo Scappi in its caption.

• Done. Tim riley talk 12:06, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Sources

• A wide range of reliable sources, evidently relevant to the topic, are listed.

• Spot-checks: [27] ok; [34] ok; [54] "Gehdck" should read "Gehäck"; [62] ok, but page range should be 745-746; [79] ok, though it doesn't quite say it's made of clams! [93] ok.

• Typos now amended.

• It would be a definite convenience to readers to link the References to their Sources using {{sfn|Anderson|1995|p=23}} and so on. This compact format takes little space, would leave the References looking much as they do now — e.g. 91. ^ Anderson, 1995. p. 23 – would require no change to Sources at all, and would allow direct click navigation. At the moment, every single Source gives a "Harv warning".

• I cannot get the hang of sfn referencing, which I have found intractable when I've been obliged (e.g. when jointly editing) to attempt to use it. Algebra mixed with sadism. I don't see this "Harv warning" of which you speak. Tim riley talk 11:51, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I have the warning thingy enabled, it's probably a script somewhere. Happy to sfn-ify the refs if you like! Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:03, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

If you must, but I'd rather not. Aetat 73 I don't want to have to try to master a system that baffled me in my fifties. Tim riley talk 12:07, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Tim, if you can master the subtlety of a confectioner's custard and your mayonnaise does not separate, you are easily young enough to handle an sfn! But it's your choice of course. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I have successfully made mayonnaise - and it knocks spots off the stuff in jars - but I've had my failures with it too. Crème pât (and any other custard for that matter) is as Nigel Molesworth would say peasie, and look where he went to school! Tim riley talk 13:04, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Summary

• This is a fine article and there's very little wrong with it. I hope to see it at GA soon. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:36, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.