Talk:Barefoot Contessa
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Run Time
I'm not a Wikipedian by any means (although I do read it quite a bit), but wouldn't episode runtime be 21 - 23 minutes due to commerical breaks? Example, the Good Eats page refers to each episode lasting this long. If no, perhaps someone should edit the Good Eats page to show 30 minutes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.202.39.130 (talk) 13:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
- Yes, indeed, you're correct. It should be run-time without commercials. I'll fix that ASAP. Air.dance 13:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Wow. Incredibly fast turn around. Good work! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.202.39.130 (talk) 13:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
- Looks like the standard for 30 minute shows is 20-23 minutes, so that's what I went with. Thanks for the sharp eye and the compliment. Cheers! Air.dance 13:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Wow. Incredibly fast turn around. Good work! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.202.39.130 (talk) 13:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
[edit] Reason for Reversion
Ina's husband did not retire from his position as professor. He retired from the dean position of the Yale SOM.
Her bibliography is listed on her eponymous article and does not need to be repeated here.
Please try to refrain from site pimping. If you'd like to add a link to that unofficial message board, please describe it as only a fan message board.
Please refrain from non-neutral POV statements.
[edit] Site pimping
Once more for those in the back -- can we please refrain from site pimping? And if you must link to that message board, it's a good idea to state that it is unofficial and not connected to Garten.
- Answer - since I don't know how to post a message back to you. A) You are really not very nice in your choice of words. And B) in your original snarky comment, you yourself stated to use FAN message board. And just an FYI...it is obvious to all and sundry that FAN is unofficial.
- Your method of answering is fine. I'll apologise for any implied snark, but I had removed the original long description several times only for it to be immediately replaced. If you look at my original notation on this page, I was perfectly polite in asking but my request went unheeded. Please see the Ina Garten talk page for more on this. -- Air.dance 02:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Answer - I think it's a matter of how one reads your initial post. And after your initial post we added 'fan' to the description. You didn't say in your initial post that there was a problem with the secription, just with not alluding to it being anything but a fan site.
- Please see the Ina Garten talk page for my response. -- Air.dance 02:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Answer - I think it's a matter of how one reads your initial post. And after your initial post we added 'fan' to the description. You didn't say in your initial post that there was a problem with the secription, just with not alluding to it being anything but a fan site.
- Your method of answering is fine. I'll apologise for any implied snark, but I had removed the original long description several times only for it to be immediately replaced. If you look at my original notation on this page, I was perfectly polite in asking but my request went unheeded. Please see the Ina Garten talk page for more on this. -- Air.dance 02:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bibliography Information
Do we really need her biblio here as well as on her bio article? It seems extraneous and the cookbooks are technically not a component of the show, since the original BC cookbook was published before the FN show and the cookbook series stands alone, i.e. unrelated to FN. Let's try to reach a consensus so we don't play the add-delete game. -- Air.dance 02:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV
In my opinion, this article takes a decidedly negative view of the show. It reads more like someone's snarky blog entry than an encyclopedia.
Several of the sentences here seem to implicitly object to the fact that the host has money, and seem to deride the fact that she drives nice cars and has a well kept garden. While certainly some viewers might be thinking the same things, the way it's currently worded sounds like editorial comments rather than an official source of unbiased information.
Finally, is the reference to "food porn" really necessary? Is there an actual published paper saying that this is an example of "food porn"? This summation sounds like what might loosely be called "original research", and thus would be against the Wikipedia guidelines.
Of course, I could be wrong...
- Agreed. Some parts of the article sound to me like the writer had something against Ina for not being health conscious enough, listing her calories, or pretending she drove less expensive cars or something. I'm not sure about the "food porn" part, either. This is the first time I've sure ever heard the show called that. TheS0S 11:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- Also agreed -- I haven't gotten around to giving this article a major overhaul (which was my goal after finishing the Ina Garten article), but there's definitely a lot of NPOV issues. As for the food porn reference, that's actually my work -- I've seen it referenced as such in several articles. For now, I'm going to remove and reword some of the NPOV stuff, and I'll get around to adding references soon. Cheers. Air.dance 05:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
