Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Glengoyne Distillery/1

Glengoyne Distillery

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Endorse fail. Hopefully the additional comments below will be helpful in improving the article. Articles can be renominated at any time. Geometry guy 22:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am calling for the reassessment of this article as I feel that this article does not deserve to have been failed. In my opinion the reviewer of the last two GA reviews has been too harsh and too criticising. Frankly I find the requests of this reviewer to be unreasonable under the scope of GA. I am seeking the view of third party(s) on this matter. -- Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 01:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I may be a little single minded here; I think the non-free images in the products section need to go. The topic of the article is the distillery itself, so I don't see how those images of their products can measure up to the criteria that says all non-free images must significantly increase the readers understanding of the topic. According to the non-free use rationales provided (the first two lack even this btw.) the purpose of the images are: "To demonstrate the appearance and colour of a rare whisky", however the apperance and color of any of their products is not devoted any coverage in the actual article. Yes seeing what theyr products look like is "nice", but I don't see how removing those images would actualy make any of the article content harder to understand, and as such they fail to satisfy the non-free policy criteria regarding significance. --Sherool (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the same thing, and i've asked at the WP:NFCC talk page to see what others think. I really looked like a catelogue, which i'm sure the company doesn't mind, but makes it not free for re-users.Yob Mod 06:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed all but one image. -- Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 19:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse fail. The reliable secondary sources in the references are insufficient to support the material in the article. I see no evidence that MaltMadness.com is a reliable source; Glengoyne.com, bruichladdich.com and blog.glenfiddich.com are primary sources; other sources include SMWS.co.uk, WhiskyDistilleryTours.com, ScotlandWhisky.com, WhiskyMerchants.co.uk, BBR.com and TheWhiskyGuide.com, which appear to be associated with producers and/or sales. Thus for example, no reliable secondary source is provided for "In the early nineteenth century, due to the heavy taxes on spirit production imposed by the government, many whisky producers were forced to operate illegally." (First sentence, history section.) "Glengoyne saw a vast increase in output capacity as well as a similar rise in sales." is sourced to Whiskey-pages.com, which is a slightly better looking source (editorial control by published writers), but the source has only a quotation from the Brand Heritage Manager. Further, Glengoyne's awards are sourced to its own site.

In addition to these issues, the lead is too short to summarize the article adequately, and there is unencyclopedic prose, e.g., "Unlike many malt whisky distilleries, Glengoyne does not use peat smoke to dry their barley, but instead selects to use warm air." and "Unlike many malt whiskys Glengoyne does not use peat smoke to dry their barley but instead favours the use of warm air." Why "selects" and "favours"? Finally, I agree that the multiple non-free images make this rather too much like a catalogue. Geometry guy 21:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse fail The article was failed this time round due to lack of corrective action by the WP:GAN nominator. I carried out the review (see talk:Glengoyne Distillery/GA3), on 18 May 2009, and left the review open. The nominator also raised some questions on 18 May 2009. The nomination was failed on 19 July 2009; I checked that the nomintor was active on wikipedia before closing the nomination. The nominator states on his talk page that he is a student at Strathclyde University, but appears to be unable to provide any WP:verifiable references. The article is little more than links to blog sites and whisky websites, yet there are numerous books on the Whisky industry, I sent the nominator a list taken from Strathclyde Univerity's library catalogue. This was discussed by the first reviewer in talk:Glengoyne Distillery/GA1. The only written reference was added by me in an attempt to improve the article. The article has certainly been improved as a result to the last two reveiws, for instance: it was necessary to make these comments in the previous review (see talk:Glengoyne Distillery/GA2), mainly due to the uncritical inclusion of "facts" from the distillery company's own website:

I regard "Glengoyne does not use peat smoke to dry their barley, but instead favours the use of warm air" and "boasting eight working warehouses" as marketing hypo.

Again, why push corporate hospitality at their visit centre, I'm sure that if Rangers or Celtic wish to take clients out for a "nosh up" they will not use wikipedia to search out a venue. Incidentally Ref 6 does not mention corporate hospitality, but it does mention 35,000 visits

The Rob Roy is a nice story, but it is uncritically included in the article as fact. By all means include it, but let's have some objectivity. Roy Rob is a character, i.e. he does not exist. You have provided the following information from the company website: "the character Rob Roy, known for many illegal activities, is believed to have hidden in an oak tree just 300 metres from the distillery to avoid detection by the local law enforcement". So critical questions, is there any conformation of this in the Rob Roy novels? Sir Walter Scott died in 1832 and the company did not become legal until the following year, so how do we know it was their still (it was hardly a distillery, just a collection of stills, possibly only one) (and the company web site, ref 4, says at least 18 stills were operating in the area, it does not claim that they were theirs)? The UK did not use metric measure in the 18th and 19th centuries, so the distance would not have been measured as 300 metres (possibly 1,000 ft).

The infobox states that rain water is used - nice bit of marketing spin - the article and the references quoted state that water is taken from the burn.

This article has the potential of reaching GA-status, but it is not there yet.Pyrotec (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse fail - as Pyrotec says, it has potential, but a range of referencing problems remain, as do issues with the netrality and non-encyclopedic nature of parts of the text. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]