Talk:McEwan's/GA2

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Reviewer: Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) 23:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My initial impression is that article feels a little light and overly promotional, but detailed comments will follow over the next day or so. Malleus Fatuorum 23:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but full disclosure here: I, nor any of my friends or family have any connection with McEwan's, Wells & Young's, Heineken or even Scotland. Farrtj (talk) 08:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And having now read the article in a little more detail it seems to me that it drifts from its stated scope; is it about the brand or the company? I've made a few comments below and I'm now going to put this review on hold. Malleus Fatuorum 02:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's about both. The ale brand and the company. I don't think I have enough material to justify a split, plus the histories are inteerlinked anyway. Farrtj (talk) 08:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But that's not what the lead says, it says "McEwan's is a brand of ales". And in fact the article tells me almost nothing about the ales themselves such as ingredients used, marketing, advertising, strength and so on. Malleus Fatuorum 13:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I've changed the lead to read "brewing company". This article refers to the company rather than the beer now. Farrtj (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That makes more sense. Malleus Fatuorum 15:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that one continental brewer "reverse engineered" McEwan's Scotch ale and used the yeast from it to produce a beer they called Duvel. Malleus Fatuorum 15:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images

File:Mcewansexport.jpg looks like a holiday snap, and has no place in an encyclopedia article.

Ok, fair enough. Farrtj (talk) 08:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had uploaded a better image (File:McEwansScotchAle-3182e.jpg), but it was replaced with the image you mention and eventually deleted due to lack of WP links. I can re-upload it if desired. — Loadmaster (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please. Farrtj (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It's 200×400px; let me know if you prefer a different size, and I can upload the larger original for resizing to taste. It also needs a more appropriate non-free use rationale. I remember using a product logo rationale specifically intended for things like drink bottles, but I can't find the exact one, so any help would be appreciated. — Loadmaster (talk) 14:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

~~"McEwan's is a brand of ales that originated in Edinburgh, Scotland but is now owned by the English brewing company Wells & Youngs." Why but is now owned? And why no comma after "Scotland"?~~

"The beers are sold predominantly in Scotland, where it has a 20 per cent share of the ale market, and the North of England." What's the "it" referring to there? Malleus Fatuorum 16:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian Edinburgh success story

~~That's a ridiculously tabloid subsection title.~~
~~"The site was chosen due to its proximity to the Caledonian railway line." Check out the correct usage of "due to".~~
~~"... he began to build up an export trade by the 1860s". Tense doesn't work. "He had begun to ..."? "He had ..."?~~
"... it was during this time that McEwan's India Pale Ale was first labelled Export." During what time? And why is Export italicised?

It's clear from the sentence that this was the 1860s. And all the beer names are italicised, as per WikiProject Beer guidelines. "Export" is a brand name. Farrtj (talk) 08:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then why is McEwan's Younger and McEwan's Lager not italicised in the Sponsorship section? Malleus Fatuorum 15:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must have overlooked McEwan's Lager. "McEwan's Younger" is not a beer brand, it is the name of the company.Farrtj (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't at all clear from the sentence that we're talking about the 1860s, and the sentence as written doesn't really make sense anyway: "After he had built a successful market in the industrial regions of the Scottish lowlands he began to build up an export trade by the 1860s; it was during this time that McEwan's India Pale Ale was first labelled Export." And "markets" aren't successful. Malleus Fatuorum 13:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~"The shilling "/-" denotion refers to the amount of duty that was levelled on a barrel of the beer." Shouldn't that "levied", not "levelled"?~~

Mid century mergers

~~As the brewery was founded in 1856 it's not immediately obvious which century we're talking about.~~
"Scottish Brewers continued to grow its market share in the brewing sector, doubling its output after a costly five-year programme of expansion and modernisation undertaken between 1958 and 1963." Scottish Brewers may well have done, but what has that got to to do with the subject of this article, which is supposedly the McEwans brand?

As Scottish Brewers primarily consists of McEwan's, I think some background information on the company is important. Farrtj (talk) 08:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"In the 1930s the Laughing Cavalier mascot was introduced, based on the well-known Frans Hals painting." Introduced to what, by whom?

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. I've changed it to "was introduced to the McEwan's brand" Farrtj (talk) 08:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~"The company merged again in 1960, joining with Newcastle Breweries to form Scottish & Newcastle". No. Scottish Brewers hadn't previously merged with anyone else, it was itself the result of a merger.~~
~~"The Fountain Brewery was rebuilt in 1973 and pioneered the use of computer control for the entire brewing process." I'm once again left wondering what this has to do with the McEwan's brand.~~

The Fountain Brewery is where McEwan's is brewed, as is earlier stated. The information seems pertinent to the article. Farrtj (talk) 08:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

Ref 13 is dead.

Status of review as at 15 October

I'm still concerned about the depth of coverage in this article:

There seems to be a rather large gap between Victorian beginnings and 20th-century mergers

I've added to the history there. Frankly, not a lot of interest seems to have happened to the company during this time. Farrtj (talk) 20:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other than their names, there's virtually no information about the company's products

What would you like to know? Farrtj (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the Products section in Boddingtons, for instance. Malleus Fatuorum 15:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reinstated my old products section. I am behind the Boddingtons page by the way. Farrtj (talk) 10:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're told that by the 1860s McEwan's had built up a successful export trade, but to where?

The article tells you. Scottish expatriates throughout the British Empire, but mostly the white colonies of Australia, Canada and South Africa, as well as India, where there were a large number of Scottish colonial administrators. Farrtj (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it does not. What the article says is this: "First building a market share in the industrial regions of the Scottish lowlands, McEwan had built up a successful export trade by the 1860s." Where does that mention the British Empire? And as that's talking about "McEwan" rather than "McEwan's" the company, McEwan could have been exporting anything at all, not necessarily beer. Mention of the British Empire comes later: "By the turn of the twentieth century the company had a large share of the market throughout Scotland, a 90 per cent share of the Tyneside market, and was exporting to Scottish expatriates across the British Empire.". In other words that's 40 years later, not "by the 1860s". Malleus Fatuorum 15:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DoneFarrtj (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The previous GA review noted lack of material on marketing and merchandising, which still hasn't been addressed. All we've got is an advertising poster from 1906 and a bulleted list of football shirt sponsorship deals.

I think the bulleted list is the best way to illustrate the sponsorship deals, don't you? Farrtj (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not fond of bulleted lists as a general rule, but I'm not criticising your choice in this case. What I'm complaining about is the lack of marketing/merchandising material except for that bulleted list. Malleus Fatuorum 15:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've improved it. Farrtj (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's the correct title for ref #45?

Well spotted. Corrected. Farrtj (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was sources to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report, which obviously isn't right: "During the late 1980s and early 1990s it was marketed as "The one you've got to come back for". I've removed the citation, but as it's a direct quotation it needs to be sourced.

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.