Talk:Nelson's Green Brier Distillery

Spirits Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirits, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spirits or Distilled beverages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritsWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritsTemplate:WikiProject SpiritsSpirits

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spirits WikiProject task list:

This list is transcluded from the tasks page, to edit it click here.

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Spirits:

Tagging all articles that fall under our scope with {{WikiProject Spirits}} and assessing their quality and importance to the project.

Tennessee Low‑importance

	Tennessee portal Nelson's Green Brier Distillery is within the scope of WikiProject Tennessee, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Tennessee and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member. [Project Articles] • [Project Page] • [Project Talk] • [Assessment] • [Template Usage]TennesseeWikipedia:WikiProject TennesseeTemplate:WikiProject TennesseeTennessee
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Nelson's Green Brier Distillery appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 31 July 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that in the mid-1880s, Nelson's Greenbrier Distillery dwarfed Jack Daniel's in its output of Tennessee whiskey?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2009/July.

Wikipedia

Undid Previous Revert

Adding a note regarding undoing Oknazevad's revert: I disagree with the assertion that the text was promotional before the revert. However, I went back through it again and made a few more tweaks to remove any remaining words or phrases that could potentially be interpreted as "advertising." I also removed a couple of phrases that mentioned how a spirit could be used, just in case that could be seen as suggesting that readers try it. It doesn't include any flowery language or pompous adjectives. The main differences at this point are the inclusion of products, brief descriptions, and a few sentences about awards. Product information and awards (within reason) are present on almost all distillery pages and should not cause a problem as long as they don't read as glowing promotional reviews, and they don't. I believe the tone is neutral and informational, not promotional. It's just facts without flowery words.Riterchick1983 (talk) 10:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's my understanding that a full revert of someone's work should only be a last-resort, worst-case-scenario option (besides reverting vandalism, of course). We are encouraged to improve on each other's work, not just undo it, especially when it's a lot of work and not just a sentence or two. Even from an opposing viewpoint of feeling like it was too close to advertising, it was noted that the underlying facts were good. I would think that would mean corrections were in order, not a full revert.Riterchick1983 (talk) 10:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was much very improved on your second pass, without many changes. I just ask that you keep that sort of critical eye for tone in future edits, as it better fits the purpose of an encyclopedia. oknazevad (talk) 11:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. It's a lot different than the type of writing I'm used to (fiction), and I'm still working out the kinks. Thanks!Riterchick1983 (talk) 11:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]