Talk:Lemon & Paeroa/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rjjiii (talk · contribs) 09:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

In the next week or so, I will look over the article. Before I start, I notice there are 6 inline cleanup tags (2 when and 4 citation needed]. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ(talk) 09:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Well-written

I find issues with the prose throughout the article. I'm going to note some examples below, but this isn't exhaustive. I'll put the article on hold if you want to try a copyedit. It may be a better idea to ask another editor for a copyedit of the article or to step away for a couple of weeks and come back with fresh eyes. Here are several examples:

• "No one had thought of commercialising it." This confuses me because I don't know what time frame it's talking about, why people thought (or did not think) that, and how it could be true when it's immediately followed by the history of commercialization. The sources mention (a) specifically when the water was sold as "table water", (b) that individuals were bottling it for themselves, and (c) that at least some people did not think there was a market for it at one point.
• "This factory sold water rather than Lemon & Paeroa, which was known as "Paeroa and Lemon" at the time—it is not clear when "Paeroa and Lemon" switched to "Lemon and Paeroa", it was marketed using both names in the late 1940s." I think the information presented here is straightforward, but this sentence structure is very complex, beyond the college graduate reading level. It was not clear to me that two products were being sold until I read the source. I also don't know if the P&L to L&P name change needs to be mentioned if we can't say anything about it.
• "It was 1934 when Lemon & Paeroa started being manufactured in Paeroa rather than Auckland." At this point in the article, it has been said that some type of water was shipped from Paeroa to Auckland. Since no mention was made of Lemon and Paeroa being made in Auckland, or the distinction between the mineral water and L&P, it was really unclear what this sentence meant.
• "At some point there was a pipe that went from the factory to the Railway Reserve which allowed the public to drink the water using a hand pump." After doing a quick search, a journal article says that was run in 1970.
• In the history section, the events are out of chronological order. Some parts were difficult for me to follow because of this. In one stretch the time periods run as follows
  • 1970s
  • At some point
  • 1969
  • By the 1970s
  • in 1904
  • not known when
  • estimated 1907
  • in 1980
  • In 1995
• "In 2019 a 70cm tall L&P bottle was sold on Trade Me for over $1,000." This sentence itself is very straightforward. I think the significance though is about how L&P is a part of New Zealand culture or something to that effect. As written, it comes at the end of a paragraph about Coca-Cola potentially changing the bottle color, which made it initially seem like this was somehow connected to that color change.
• "In October 2016 Lemon & Paeroa launched a limited edition" I don't see how this section is organized. The first two paragraphs start with a date but run out of chronological order. I see (a) a paragraph's worth of material about chocolate promoted with a fake car crash, (b) information about flavors spread across both paragraphs, and (c) a sentence about the L&P Cafe.
• "it became a traffic hazard." This was a really fascinating part of the article for me. I would consider expanding and clarifying the chain of events. I'm not from New Zealand, so it was unclear to me until I read the sources. Highway 2 runs through Paeroa, but I didn't know this. My incorrect interpretation of the wiki text was that the bottle had been set up in the town, then dismantled, then rebuilt on Highway 2, and then moved to another location that sounds rural and unrelated to Highway 2. I think that misreading is easy for someone unfamiliar with the area.
• "In 2020 it was listed for sale." Coming at the end of the paragraph, I thought this was the most recent information, that the place was currently up for sale. But reference 15 is a review of the place from 2 years later. Do we know who bought it? Is it up for sale but still running as usual?
• "In 2009 Tony Coombe tried to object Coca-Cola Amatil's attempt to trademark the phrase in 2004." Somehow the article should make the connection and conflict between Tony Coombe/L&P Cafe vs. Coca-Cola/L&P beverage clearer.

I'll stop there for the prose. I hope that doesn't come off as too harsh, and you are welcome to ask questions.Rjjⁱⁱⁱ(talk) 10:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Improved but some issues remain, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Verifiable with no original research

2a: This looks good. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ(talk) 06:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Source review:[1]

• Reference 2: This is a reliable source. The citation is formatted as a URL but the URL is a mirror of an article published in the "Ohinemuri Regional History Journal" issue 45 in September 2001, so this close to ideal for the topic.
  • Some close paraphrasing here: Compare "in a cow paddock near the confluence of the Ohinemuri and Waihou Rivers, known as The Junction," to "in a cow paddock near the junction between the Ohinemuri and Waihou Rivers, known as The Junction at the time."
  • Otherwise this verifies the inforation in the article and the rest is appropriately summarized.
• Reference 3: This article by "By Graham Watton, Curator and Historian of the Paeroa and District Museum" is mostly a word-for-word reprint of the journal article but has slightly more specific information about ownership. It verifies the material.
• Reference 6: This is the product's official website. The reliable sources cited earlier in the article, and the wiki text cited to them directly contradict the idea that in 1907 "Menzies & Co started bottling the water" so it should be made more clear that this is the manufacturer's story, and not a fact.
• Reference 9: This newspaper article verifies the content.
• Reference 10: This site is somewhat promotional rather than pure news. It's used only to cite a hard fact and an attributed viewpoint which is an acceptable use. It verifies the content in the article.
• Reference 13: This news radio interview with the mayor and brief article verify all but the "the change would have difficulty gathering widespread support." Consider rephrasing this to better match the source.
• Reference 19: This verifies the content. Since the article cites a few experts, you could revise "a few people" to instead mention an expert or two and summarize their input.
• Reference 20: This historical encyclopedia maintained by the national government verifies the content.
• Reference 27: This news article verifies the material.
• Reference 28: This self-published source is from a subject matter expert and verifies the content.

The sources mostly look good, Panamitsu. Take a look at the comments for reference 2, 6, and 13.Rjjⁱⁱⁱ(talk) 10:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Resolved. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage

• Have you read this article: https://www.ohinemuri.org.nz/journals/journal-36-september-1992/paeroa-mineral-spring ? It's a solid source for the first paragraph in your history section.
• Also this 1970 source is worse in every way than reference 2, except that it explicity gives 1970 as the date for "there was a pipe that went from the factory to the Railway Reserve": https://www.ohinemuri.org.nz/journals/journal-14-october-1970/history-of-lemon-and-paeroa
• There is some kind of conflict between L&P Cafe and Coca-Cola that forced the cafe to rebrand. Somehow the article should touch on this if it's mentioning the Cafe and Coombe's trademark dispute.
• I would love a slight expansion on the bottle. It's amazing that they just had this massive thing on the street. Also, do any sources explain how and why people climbed inside of it to promote L&P?Rjjⁱⁱⁱ(talk) 10:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

  Improved but some issues remain, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

This criteria is affected by issues with prose, the broadness, and a minor issue with a reference. The overall structure meets NPOV otherwise. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ(talk) 10:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I've marked this as met, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Stable

The only potential stability issue is the merge discussion, but it appears to have reached a consensus not to merge the two articles.Rjjⁱⁱⁱ(talk) 10:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Illustrated

6a: All images have valid copyright information and licenses. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ(talk) 06:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

6b: Check your captions out. 2 of the 3 end with a period, but none are complete sentences. You could make them into sentences or (likely the better option) just remove the periods. Also "A bottle of L&P." is not a very helpful caption. What makes this photo helpful for a reader? Why is this slightly different design from the infobox photo included here? The caption should signal that. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ(talk) 06:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Overall

1. Well-written
2. Verifiable with no original research
3. Broad in its coverage
4. Neutral
5. Stable
6. Illustrated

Comments

Update: I checked out the images and the reference section. Let me know when you've addressed the existing cleanup tags and I'll move on to checking sources. Regards, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ(talk) 06:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Rjjiii: I've now resolved the inline tags and the captions. —Panamitsu (talk) ^{Please ping on reply} 07:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@Panamitsu: The captions look good. I'm marking this section as passed. Also, the giant bottle is fine as it is, so this is outside of GA concerns: have you seen this big bottle photo on the commons File:Big Lemon and Paeroa Bottle.jpg, I find it more clear but that's entirely up to you. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ(talk) 10:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@Panamitsu: The article looks better in many ways. I don't think it meets the GA criteria yet and will soon conclude my review. You are welcome to renominate the article at any time. You are also welcome to ask any questions either to me or at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations.

A few closing notes regarding this version of the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lemon_%26_Paeroa&oldid=1177901394

The captions are clearer, the added image helps with clarity in the history, and it has a valid copyright template on the commons. I think some of the potential NPOV and source issues were due to ambiguity in the prose, so I've marked both criteria as a pass. The prose is clearer, but I still find the prose confusing in many places. The largest issue I see with criteria 3 (Broad in its coverage), is that the article mentions but does not explain the relationships between the L&P Cafe, the L&P brand's owner, and Tony Coombe. I think the opening line in the history section combined with the added image provide a better framework to understand that content. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 19:51, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

@Rjjiii Well thank you for choosing to review an article that was obviously very far from GA status! It helps a lot. —Panamitsu (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2023 (UTC)