Talk:Stones Bitter

Redirect

Have swapped to point to Article on Willian Stones Ltd the origin brewer, rather than Coors which now own the brand, - BulldozerD11 (talk) 00:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stones Bitter/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• "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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

• "(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)

• 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)

• "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)

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

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)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stones Bitter/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 13:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Pretty well written article overall. Some initial comments are as follows:

• Article seems to lean a bit towards promotional. Peacock words used in a few places in the beginning. Also, in the advertising section, the amount of weight / space given to repeating the talking points of the various campaigns and commercials seems a bit promotional.

Looks improved North8000 (talk)

• Don't see a use rationale of the non-free image for this article.

Looks resolved. North8000 (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

My comments were simply struck, with no indication/response given. I un-struck them. North8000 (talk) 16:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Struck because I had dealt with them. Farrtj (talk) 10:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Additional comments.

• Previous reviewer mentioned reference formatting. I did not go there as that is a not a requirement for GA.
• Uses the term "Brewery Conditioned" which is think is rare/ unclear for many. The internal link goes to a re-direct to an article which does not explain or even mention this term. Substitute a different term?

It's merely a more neutral term for "keg beer". "Keg" has become a term of derision in the UK. Farrtj (talk) 10:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Well that uses yet another unfamiliar-elsewhere term. In the US kegs are simply a packaging / purchasing method. Suggest using more explanatory wording in the article. North8000 (talk) 10:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, click "keg" now and it redirects to "keg beer", which explains what the term means in the UK. Farrtj (talk) 10:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any such link in the article. But now I'm starting to understand. The term has sort of the opposite meaning in England vs. the US. In England it sort of means "less real" (because you have "traditional cask beer" to compare it to, which we don't have in the US) In the US it sort of means "more real" (e.g compared to canned beer) or "beer for a really big party" (vs. buying cans and bottles)North8000 (talk) 10:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I hope I've made things clear. Farrtj (talk) 10:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

That takes care of me but not the readers. But now I know enough to try to tweak it so that dummies like me can understand. North8000 (talk) 10:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks sufficiently resolved. North8000 (talk) 11:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• The still remaining use of six sentences verbatim which are direct quotes of promotional material still makes it seem a bit promotional. But those quotes are informative. I would not fail or hold it for this but that's just a thought.

If you have a slight problem with them then I have no problem removing them. Look at what I've done for now, I think it fills the middle ground.Farrtj (talk) 10:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks good.North8000 (talk) 10:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

My only comments relevant to the GA criteria are mentioned above. I think it's nearly there. But since I first took this up today, either way I'd keep it open for several more days for others to comment. North8000 (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Issues that I had with respect to GA criteria have been resolved. I plan to pass this article. But since I just took it up a few days ago I'll leave it open a few more days in case there are other comments. North8000 (talk) 11:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Final recheck on evolved article

Well-written

Yes, suggested changes for clarity were madeNorth8000 (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Factually accurate and verifiable

Yes, looks good in this area. North8000 (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage

Covers everything that I can think of. Quick web search found no material on major uncovered areas.North8000 (talk) 01:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

Has had a few minor tweaks in the area during the review process. I decided that the main remainign material that might sound promotional )quotes from ads) is useful historical information. North8000 (talk) 01:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

Yeas, very stable, no disputes. North8000 (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images

Has one image, with article-specific rationale. With caption and alt text. More images would be nice but I know how tough that is in Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 01:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I left this open some extra time for other comments. I pass it. I will implement details. If you wish to further refine it, one idea might be prose and organization that has the large amount of provided information items knitted together into more of a flow / continuity. Nice article! North8000 (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Passed Good Article

I passed this as a Good Article. Nice work. Details are at [[1]] Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Stones Bitter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140201233701/http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-309292749/brewing-heart.html to http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-309292749/brewing-heart.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)