Talk:Stones Bitter/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 15:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bitter drinker, personally, more of a lager fan. I've drunk Stones, but I didn't love it. (Also, I think I'm from the wrong side of the Pennines...) Review to follow soon. J Milburn (talk) 15:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source formatting leaves a lot to be desired, and means that, in places, it's hard to judge the reliability of sources. If you use Template:Cite news, Template:Cite book and Template:Cite web then you probably won't go too far wrong. At the moment, the formatting is such a hodge-podge that it really weakens the article, which is a shame, as most of the sources look to be good ones.

Will leave this till last as it is the major issue, and I take your point, although perfect referencing is not a pre-requisite for GA status.Farrtj (talk) 03:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask why you have italicised the names of beers? I can't see anything in the relevant part of the MOS.

WikiProjectBeer suggests it. It makes sense to me.Farrtj (talk) 03:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not keen on the short paragraphs in the lead. It should really be expanded a little further.
We really need a link to Bitter (beer) somewhere near the start.

Done.Farrtj (talk) 03:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Stones was described at the time as "more of a religion [in South Yorkshire] than a beer."" I know leads are often unreferenced, but a quote will really need attribution.

Done.Farrtj (talk) 03:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The history section is difficult to follow in places. For instance, you don't actually mention the take-over by Bass. Anything discussed in the lead should also be discussed in the article. Same with Coors. These take-overs are important parts of the brand's history.

I take your point, but that stuff is all discussed at my Stones Brewery page. This page is an off-shoot of that. I'm trying to avoid repeating myself here.Farrtj (talk) 03:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding undue repetition is important, but it's clearly a part of the story of this beer; equally, there's going to be repetition on articles about authors and their books, or actors and the films in which they starred. J Milburn (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You refer to the difference between keg and cask drinks, but you never really clearly say when each started.

The cask variant was started in 1948. The keg version was started sometime after the Bass takeover, possibly when the beer began to go nationwide but I really don't have the answer. Sometime between 1968 and 1978.Farrtj (talk) 03:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"(Columbus, Zeus and Tomahawk) and a blend of European hops (Magnum and Admiral)" Links to the list entries would be beneficial here
With regards to the recipe, does it only contain hops, barley and water?

I guess so, I don't know or see the relevance of this.Farrtj (talk) 03:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why the italics on the slogans? Again, nothing in the MoS?

WikiProjectBeer style guidelines again I think.Farrtj (talk) 03:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"with a series from" A series of what?
Try to avoid personifying publications. A magazine doesn't say something, its writers do.
It's a shame that the article is unillustrated. It would benefit from, firstly, a free picture of a pint of Stones, and, secondly, a non-free image of the Stones logo. Due to the discussion of the marketing and the logo itself, it would certainly meet the NFCC.

There are also issues with imperfect prose, but these are things that can be ironed out later. Right now, what I'd really need to see was the source formatting sorted, the lead expanded and the history section smoothed out. After that, we'd be looking for images, a source-check and a copyedit. If they work out, I'd imagine that the article will be ready for GA status. I'll put the article on hold for now. Hope you're able to work with this stuff! J Milburn (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know when you're ready for a second look-through. J Milburn (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the article has been on hold for several weeks, and has not been edited in nearly two. The issues with the references remain. As such, I'm going to close this review at this time. I urge you to give the references the attention that they need and then to renominate; if I'm available, I'd be happy to do another review of this article once the issues with the references have been resolved. J Milburn (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]