Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/San Pellegrino/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

San Pellegrino

[edit]

Since I, metaphorically speaking, seem to be the only contributor to the article, this is a self-nomination. I believe this article has gone through major renovation. Since the first peer review, I have managed to do what everybody requested. Similarly, I have also been able to meet the demands of the latest peer review. I have adressed the situation of both peer reviews. I generally describes the situation of the water: History, Popularity, Overview, and Analysis. Even although very little vandalism is not a valid reason for support, it could be interesting to note that the article hasn't been touched by a vandal. Thanks, --Kilo-Lima 14:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object. Please expand the lead to two concise paragraphs (see WP:Lead). The History section is missing a lot of information - what happened in the 1910s, 1920s, 1940s, 1950s? Information on marketing/advertising is missing. Production and sales figures require references using Wikipedia:Footnotes. Information on the packaging seems to be missing. Has it gone any rival products? Some of the tense is incorrect, saying 'is' instead of 'was' or 'are' instead of 'were', such as: About 100 years later, in the late 1899, 35,343 bottles are produced; 5,562 of which are exported. This is the first sale figure of the water. Those bottles were produced, not are. References are generally lacking, 3 of them are from the same website and one just from a bottle itself. What about news reports or information from the drink's official website? The addition of the drink logo would be a good thing to add. The article is generally lacking in information - it is too short to become featured at this stage, I was able to find lots of information about the drink on the official website that is not included in this article. — Wackymacs 17:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your comments. According to the San Pellegrino website, everything from the 1910s, 20s, 40s and 50s is generally unnecessary. 1911 and 1917 talk about "some" casio: this couldn't be prose - I decided not to include it in the article becuase I, personlly, don't think anyone would want to read about a casino - when the entire article is about the water. There is no mention of the 1920s on the website. 1940s: There is, yet again, no mention of the 1940s. 1950s: There is only one entry for the 1950s: "The Societa Anonima delle Terme di San Pellegrino purchases Acqua Panna". -- Personally, I have no idea what this is about. What is "he Societa Anonima delle Terme di San Pellegrino" and what is "Acqua Panna"? Since I don't speak Italian, who knows. I will continue to improve it tomoroow. --Kilo-Lima 18:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC). PS: I have uploaded the folowing images:[reply]
Image:San Pelly official.PNG - The logo of San Pellegrino. I have already added it to the article.


  • Object. "San Pellegrino also produces carbonated beverages in various flavors. Some of which include: Aranciata (Orange), Limonata (Lemon), Sanbittèr (Bitters), and Chinò (Chinotto). The cost of such drinks are about the same as a 500ml of San Pellegrino." The price information for a bottle of 500ml San Pellegrino was never mentioned in the article (only the 750ml). Because of this, this comparison is meaningless as the we do not know the property (price) of the thing which is been comapred against. The point I'm making is that before a comparison, we must know the properties of one of the objects (price, size etc.) and therefore we can relate the property in the subject, originally unknow before the comparison, to the same know property in the object. As we don't know how much a 500ml San Pellegrino costs, even there is a comparison made we still don't know the price of the different flavours. It's like saying evaluate x when x=y. Obviously y is also a variable and without enough information neither can be evaluated. Of course, this might be a simple typo error which originally inteded the "500ml" to be "750ml".Also there are not much information as a whole in the article and there seems to be an abundance of positive annotations for the drink. I'm sure there is some negatives out there as well that can be added. E.g. did the drink ever caused controversy? Some of the materials already there can be expanded and new information can be grabbed off the internet and re-written. And lastly dittoing Wackymacs, the tenses need a good fixing. --★Ukdragon37★talk 19:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your comments, Ukdragon37, but perhaps you would like to go to Tesco (I know where you live) and look at the drinks refridgerator, nearby the newspapers, and help contribute to the article by finding out the price of the 500ml. Personally, I know. --Kilo-Lima 22:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • To answer your comment, I am not the person who wish to promote this article to FA status. Also, if Tesco's the only place which you got your prcing information, then I must say it might be a "biased" source as that's only one retailer. Perhaps you should go to Sainsbury's or some other retailers and average out the prices? Also this article lacks flair, it seems boring and contains not much information. Most featured articles contains a full and rich introduction probably because if the article gets further promoted to Main Page status the introduction will most likely be the only section which will be shown directly. I am willing place a bet that if the article gets FA status, which I doubt, you will want to nominate it to be shown on the Main Page. Do we really want people to see a stub of introduction the first time they visit Wikipedia? I think not. The introduction therefore should be expanded, in my opinion, for all articles that have or is trying to gain FA status despite whether or not they will be put up to the main page as the introduction will give the reader a fine idea of what the rest of the article is like. A short and unimaginative introduction will put readers off reading the rest. It's much likle story-writing, where you must write a good chapter 1 to compell the readers to read the following chapters. Also, the horrid use of pictures in the article has created horrendous gaps in the main text. Please fix this as it is certainly not FA material. --★Ukdragon37★talk 12:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • And just another pouint I forgot, if you know the price of the 500ml bottle why don't you add it in? Articles must not be discriminant, which means revealing information for those who knows something else. In this case, only the people who knows the price of the 500ml bottle will know the price of the different varieties. What about the people who never heard of San Pellegrino before? Not everyone on Wikipedia drinks San Pellegrino and knows every single price of the different bottles you know. --★Ukdragon37★talk 13:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have been to Peckham's, and Tesco to price it. And I have already added it to the article. --Kilo-Lima 13:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC) I have also added where the spring is in the introduction. San Pellegrino is anything but a stub. --Kilo-Lima 13:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you have read my comments carefully you will see that I did not say that the article was a stub. Rather, I said the introduction is much like a stub and it will not feature nicely on the Main Page or for a standard FA. Comparing the article to today's Main Page article De Lorean DMC-12, it pales in comparison. The introduction of De Lorean DMC-12 was very well written and is three times as long as your introduction. The introduction must have a sufficent length to give the reader a good impression of Wikipedia when they look at the Main Page. Hoever i'm just guessing that you want your article on the Main Page. The same can be said to the whole article. De Lorean DMC-12 is I think 4 times longer than San Pellegrino. There are many times more references, footnotes, external links and related article links. This just comes down to the major point, the article is simply not long and exciting enough to constitute as Wikipedia's best. --★Ukdragon37★talk 14:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It depends on what people would define as "interesting." Shoe polish is a featured article, and personally, I don't think very many people would like to talk about show polish. I believe on the Talk Page of the Main Page, there were several minor discussions about how disappointed people where when they realised it was a featured article. And becuase De Lorean DMC-12 contains more words than San Pellegrino, then by de facto the lead section would be longer. --Kilo-Lima 14:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • A specific article cannot possibly gain the support of every because people themselves define differently what makes a good article. However the general idea is the same. That's why we have a majority voting system where the concensus decides the result. There will always be people who are disappointed but our aim is to please the majority and if the minority suffers, that's unfortunate but nothing can be done about it. See Utilitarianism. Also, the size of the article gives us to some degree whether that article contains a lot of useful information. Granted, it might contain a lot of garbage but often this is not the case. What is certain is that a short article will not contain as much information as a long article, regardless whether those information will be useful. Of course the introduction is proportionate to the whole article and this just further strenghthens my point, where we could make an educated guess about the length of the article by looking at its introduction. Again I re-emphasize, San Pellegrino is not nearly long enough to be featured. on the "interesting" issue, iteresting can be defined as an article that gives a lot of good information. The fallacy in your statement is that an article will only be "interesting" or "good" if many people are willing to talk about it. This is not true. The quality of the article is given by how well it's written and how much information it gives, rather than how many people wishes to discuss it. If for example Prostitution or Occult is put up for FA, "not many people are willing to talk about it" will not be a valid opposing reason. There's a difference beetween whether the article is interesting or the subject of the article is interesting. The article can be about insignificant things (like shoe polish) and still be interesting because it's well written. I am aware there will always be people who are against the majority decision but to enforce an orderly system, this is the only way. We can't please everyone at the same time. --★Ukdragon37★talk 15:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not everybody is a Utilitarian. Also, we do not have a voting system. Wikipedia is not a democracy - This, FAC, is actually a discussion, and who it can be improved toward a FA status. --Kilo-Lima 15:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes but we are trying to reach a concensus here through discussion and such concensus will be the result of whether this article will be up for FA. Through this, we are using a system similar to utilitarianism so it is not relevant whether we are utilitarians or not. Also, don't you think this discussion is getting far-fetched that we are debating about the concensus system of Wikipedia? The main point is that the article is not long enough and it lacks information. No amount of debating can cause it to spontaneously grow in length. --★Ukdragon37★talk 18:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps, you would like to contribute to the article, itself. You did say "I [you] am [are] not the [only] person who wish to promote this article to FA status". --Kilo-Lima 18:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I merely pointed out the fact that as you are the person who wants to promote this article, you should improve the article and share it with us. Unfortunately I am not even close to a San Pellegrino fanatic and therefore I know very little about the subject. I am only pointing out things that are generic to all articles. --★Ukdragon37★talk 18:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No-one necessarily has to be a fanatic about the water. I like it, but that doesn't mean I am obsessed. I know very little about the water, also. That's why - as people who have access to the internet - reasearch upon it. --KILO-LIMA 17:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Object. It has grown slightly better since my comment on the peer review, but unfortunately it is far from featured article quality. Following the other comments on tenses and illogical comparisons, the article could use much copyediting. The lead is short and weak. There is actually only one reference; the one website for San Pellegrino, not enough for FA status. The information is lacking, not thorough, and not well-written. For example:

San Pellegrino (also known as S. Pellegrino, SANPELLEGRINO, or S. PELLEGRINO) is an expensive carbonated water, produced and bottled at San Pellegrino Terme, nearby Milan, Italy. - lead sentence incorrectly uses the word "nearby"

Owned by Nestlé, San Pellegrino's logo is a red five-pointed star, with another white five pointed star as a contour. - incorrect wording; this says that the logo of San Pellegrino is owned by Nestle, not San Pellegrino itself.

Below is some of the major ones throughout San Pellegrino's history- a useless and superfluous statement that should be removed.

Almost 200 years later, in 1509, Leonardo da Vinci, who dedicated a treatise to water and studied it, - too many commas

About 100 years later, in the late 1899, 35,343 bottles were produced; 5,562 of which were exported. - second part is fragmented, semicolon should be changed to a comma.

In 1904, the Bergamo—San Pellegrino railway line was made - what? sentence doesn't make sense.

This would probably make it easier for San Pellegrino to be exported; and possibly cheaper, too - Probably and possibly? what kind of research is this? Must be factually accurate.

Some of which include: Aranciata (Orange), ... -fragment

  • There are several other mistakes that have to be corrected. Dashes are used too often and are incorrectly used. Sentence structure is too repetitive, for example the last too sentences in the history section both start with Later... Later... . The article has to be expanded so that it is thorough and well-written, failing criteria 1, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3, 5. AndyZ 20:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/San_Pellegrino/archive1&oldid=1063336376"