Talk:Neapolitan ragù/GA1: Difference between revisions

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

Nominator: Rollinginhisgrave (talk · contribs) 16:07, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 18:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating (and mouthwatering) article, nicely-written.

• A brief ‘Etymology’ section is needed here: the derivation from the French ragout needs to be made explicit (and cited), and it’d be as well to explain and cite “Neapolitan” too, given its irregular form and non-obvious relationship with the word ‘Naples’.

• The phrase “ragù of Bologna” feels like a curious circumlocution, used neither in Britain (this article is in British English) nor in Italy. The normal phrase in BE is the title of the linked article, Bolognese sauce (though we often just say “Bolognese” actually). Or, we could use either ragù alla bolognese or ragù bolognese which are both well-attested.

• I’m a bit unsure about the heading ‘Fact’: ‘History’ would be more usual, and probably less polemical and more encylopedic. Or we could use ‘Background’, which could serve well here.
  • How does historical / legendary work for you?

• Seventeen years after Il cuoco galante, – it’s preferable just to spell out the actual year; it’s plainer, and easier to use as a reference.

• “chicken livers, combs and testicles, unlaid eggs, prawn tails [and] artichoke bottoms” … these will just sound strange to most readers (if not repellent). However [5] correctly writes “ingredienti pregiati come funghi, tartufi, animelle, creste di gallo, fegatini, fondi di carciofo, fette di limone e così via”, “prized ingredients such as…”, which is close to the key point here. A close analogy (though I’m not sure we can use it) is the “beatilles” (“blessed things”) in Battaglia pie which included “Cocks-combs, Goose-gibbets, Ghizzards, Livers, and other Appurtenances of Fowls (1706)”; you might be able to find a relevant source here, who knows. But [5] is certainly worth quoting about these strange-sounding ingredients.

• named it after his son – that’d be ragù di Raù … but I take it the name is being equated with ragù and the napoletano dropped? Should be spelt out. The fact that tomatoes arrived in the Columbian exchange and weren’t available in Italy in the 14th century might be relevant if OR can be avoided.
  • It is actually Raù rather than ragù, which you can see in the earliest recipe for ragù in the region being “Dish called raù“. As to the arrival of tomatoes in the Columbian exchange, I’ll see what I can do, but it’s not the only anachronism: the religious association didn’t exist yet.

• On the plains of Campania … should say “in the countryside around Naples” or words to that effect. Or actually mention Caserta and Salerno, of course.

• In Benevento … the wikilink is useful, but there should be a brief gloss as well here.

• Braciola – needs a gloss and if possible a specific link, as it isn’t clear which meaning of “Braciola” is intended from among the “several distinct dishes in Italian cuisine” … if indeed there are several, since the article over there only describes one version.
  • I gave this a gloss in its earlier appearance, do you think it is appropriate to do so again?

• were substituted for – since this article is in British English, the phrase means exactly the opposite of what is written. In BE, we’d need to say “balls of minced meat were substituted for the cuts of meat …” (we don’t say “ground meat” either).

Images

• All the images are suitable for the subject. All are on Commons. Latini is plainly PD; the photographs are all plausibly licensed.

• You might like to consider including an image of ragù bolognese, given that you use it as a contrasting dish.
  • Hm. You don’t think the article will be too overwhelmed by images of dishes that aren’t Neapolitan ragu?
    • Not really, but up to you.

Sources

• Latini needs his publisher.

• The initials in “F, M” and “Elgin K” need punctuating in keeping with the rest of the article, viz. “Elgin, K.” The treatment of the anonymising “M. F.” is a bit tricky; I’d be inclined to leave it like that as it’s a secret name which might mean anything. Alternatively you could assert that you were sure that it is “Forename Surname” abbreviated, so “F., M.” would be the output: but that looks and feels wrong, just as “F, M” does. I think I’d go with “M. F.” really.
  • This also looked wrong to me, I’ve just put M. F. in the surname field and adjust Elgin, K. accordingly.

• Spot-checks: [5] ok; [25] ok: it states that tomato was first used in Neapolitan ragù in 1857, mentioned in Carlo dal Bono’s book (quotation in [18]). This clearly needs to be added to the ‘History’ chapter. If it’s right, the 1807 date would be wrong: looking again, the article says recipe for Maccheroni alla Napolitana was updated to include tomatoes. without quite stating that that dish was a Neapolitan ragù exactly. The 1807 recipe might be a precursor to tomato-ragù rather than a full-fledged version of it? It feels to me that this hasn’t quite been bottomed out in the article. Perhaps, therefore, ‘History’ needs to be divided into two sections, ‘Gravy’ (the first 2 paragraphs) and ‘Tomato’ (the last one, extended a bit).
  • I’ve added a note that the pre-tomato version was described by Cesari as an “embryonic” Neapolitan ragu, which hopefully clarifies the trajectory, and better sets up M.F.’s recipe as the closer preparation. I am reluctant to add the 1857 quote; Cesari treats it as mere confirmation of a practice already established by M.F. and Leonardi, and I’m disinclined to override that with the scholarship of a magazine article that makes clear how little historical research has been done with its comments on ragout. I am only treating that source as reliable for describing current practice.

Summary