Talk:Webster's Brewery/GA4

GA Reassessment

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

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Notes:

Lead

Perhaps their most famous advertising slogan was 'Drives out the northern thirst'. - Original research, why was it the most popular?

Need citations in infobox, number of employees unsourced needs a direct citation, Union Cross Yard, Halifax needs a link possibly.

Origins: 1838–1900

"The site was chosen for its Pennine spring" is better as "The site was chosen as it was next to the Pennine springs" because Pennines are a mountain range. Halifax is within The Pennines.

Commas not consistent. For example, it says "In 1860 he was joined in partnership by his three sons" then later in the same section "In 1873, increasing demand led the company" Makes the article harder to read.

Cigars could be linked maybe? Examples of any wines they sold? Okay with cigars, no examples of wine available.

"with £175,000 (£17.5 million in 2010) of capital" What is capital? Can you wiki link it?

"In 1892 net profit was £20,000 (£2 million)" - Clarify? Why is it the same currency? Is it because it was a different year?

I don't know what you mean here.Farrtj (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It says that it is £20,000, but why does it say £2 million in brackets afterwards? It is confusing and so needs to be clarified. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 17:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

When reviewing it I understood what the above meant. Although as said it could be explained a tiny bit more, but it's nothing majorly wrong. --Chip123456 (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

"leaving an estate of £87,454 (£9 million)." What type of estate? Estate car? Housing estate? It needs a wiki link.

"In 1900 the Maltings building was built" What's a Maltings building? Needs a wiki link.

Many things need commas in the Origins: 1838–1900 section, in some sections it is a mouthful to read.

20th-century consolidation

Again, inconsistent commas: "In 1919 net profit was reported at £22,325 (£900,000 at 2010 prices)" and then "In 1929, the company's entire stock of properties, land and"

"(£23.2 million in 2010)" "(£65 million in 2010 prices)" Why 2010? Already outdated. There shouldn't be things in the article which become outdated like this.

You expect me to come along every year to update the Bank of England Inflation calculator data? Chances are its value in 2010 isn't meaningfully different than its value in 2011. Besides, it's only a rough guess anyway, which is sufficient for this article's purposes.Farrtj (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

"which could trace its origins back to 1790" Why? How?

That information would belong to a WIkipedia page for that specific brewery. This page is about Webster's, I don't want to digress.Farrtj (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

"In 1957 Webster's took over John Ainley & Sons of Huddersfield and Woodhead Brothers of Elland, near Halifax, a mineral water manufacturer" flows better as "In 1957, Webster's took over John Ainley & Sons of Huddersfield and Woodhead Brothers of Elland, located near Halifax. This company was a mineral water manufacturer."

"By 1958 the Northgate offices were proving insufficient for the expanding company" Insufficient what? Please clarify.

"The maltings was closed" What's maltings? Needs a wiki link maybe or clarification within the article.

"6000 quarters (8000 kilograms)" Need to use Template:Convert for things like this.

"a reciprocal trading agreement" What type of reciprocal? Needs a wiki link.

Self explanatory.Farrtj (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

"In 1966 a friendly takeover of the Bradford brewers J. Hey & Company Limited added 73 public houses to their estate." Why was it friendly, too vague.

Wikilinked friendly takeover earlier in the article. Otherwise self explanatory.Farrtj (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

"Webster's was valued at £3.3 million, and J. Hey valued at £1 million." By who?

"Throughout the 1960s and early 70s consolidation," Inconsistent date format.

"The takeover was a friendly one" Why?

Explained in the same sentence that it was agreed upon by the Webster's family.Farrtj (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

"was a great boon" What's a boon? Maybe needs a wiki link.

"That same year, Watney Mann itself was taken over by Grand Metropolitan." Unsourced, needs a direct citation.

"described as "wonderfully traditional"" By who?

Closure

"The brewery's bottling line was closed in 1991 with the loss of 54 jobs." Implies that because 54 jobs were lost, it closed. Better as "The brewery's bottling line was closed in 1991, which caused the loss of 54 jobs."

"at "well below"" Who said that? What does it mean? Does it mean well below average? Please clarify.

" deemed "unsustainable"" By who?

Brands

List could be turned into prose, lists are discouraged for GA articles.

"is a light mild that was launched " Light mild what? Please clarify.

Advertising

"a number of memorable advertising campaigns" How many? Why is it memorable?

"replaced by animatronic puppets during the 1990s" Why?

I don't know why. I'm just saying that's what happened.Farrtj (talk) 19:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Words to watch

"Its two most famous brands" Famous, peacock term.

"Perhaps their most famous advertising" Famous, peacock term.

"more popular John Smith's ale brand" Popular, peacock term.

"most popular off trade" Popular, peacock term.

"the less popular Webster's" Popular, peacock term.

"was important to the company," Important, peacock term.

"Many breweries went public" How many? Too vague.

"a number of memorable advertising campaigns" How many? Too vague.

References

FN 1 + FN 2 + FN 6 + FN 18 - Same reference, need to name the reference to prevent reference duplication.

FN 3 - Need to use {{cite web}} and provide the author, publisher, publishing date and access date.

FN 4 - Need author, publishing date and page number.

FN 5 - Needs publishing date and you need to use {{cite book}}.

FN 7 - Should be named the same as FN 3 to prevent reference duplication.

FN 8 - Why is it in capital letters?

FN 9 - What is this? Is it a journal? If so, use {{cite journal}}. You need to provide page numbers.

FN 10 - This is a blog, it is not a reliable source. You need to use {{cite web}} anyway, but the reference should be changed.

It is the blog of a noted beer historian, therefore it is reliable.Farrtj (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

FN 11 + FN 44 + FN 47 + FN 60 + FN 63 - This is a website, so you need to use {{cite web}} and provide the author, publisher, publishing date and access date.

FN 12 - What is this? Is it a journal? If so, use {{cite journal}}. You need to provide page numbers.

FN 13 - Needs page number. It is a book so you should use {{cite book}}.

FN 14 + FN 16 + FN 17 + FN 19 + FN 68 + FN 69 + FN 77 - Need to use {{cite web}} and provide the author, publisher, publishing date and access date.

FN 20 + FN 21 - News references, need to use {{cite news}}.

FN 22 - Same as FN 16, need to name them the same to prevent reference duplication.

FN 23 + FN 53 + FN 65 + FN 66 - Is there a web article?

FN 24 + FN 25 + FN 26 + FN 27 + FN 28 + FN 29 + FN 30 + FN 31 + FN 39 + FN 40 + FN 45 + FN 54 + FN 56 + FN 57 + FN 58 - News references, need to use {{cite news}}.

FN 32 + FN 33 + FN 37 + FN 48 + FN 70 + FN 78 - Need author, publishing date and page number. Use {{cite book}}.

FN 35 + FN 79 + FN 82 - Web references, use {{cite web}} provide the author, publisher, publishing date and access date.

FN 41 + FN 64 - What is this? You need to use the correct reference template and provide a full citation.

FN 42 - Page number?

FN 43 + FN 49 - Publishing date?

FN 50 + FN 51 + FN 59 + FN 71 + FN 72 + FN 73 + FN 76 + FN 85 - What is this? You need to use the correct reference template and provide a full citation.

FN 67 - How is this reliable?

FN 80 - Needs a full citation and multi page PDFs need page numbers.

FN 83 - YouTube is not a reliable source.

FN 86 - Needs a full citation. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 17:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Prose meets GA standard - it is clear and readable without spelling or grammatical errors. (It is important to note the GA prose requirements, and not to expect a higher standard than what is already present in the article - GA is not an alternative FA, and the prose does not need to be of a high standard - it simply needs to adequately convey meaning).
• Applicable MoS are met as regards the lead, the layout and words to watch.
• It has an appropriate reference section, and every sentence is cited to a reliable source (which is more than is required for FA), and there is no evidence of original research as sources checked bear out what is in the article.
• The long list of reference format problems listed above do not apply to GA criteria, and though some FA reviewers bring up such matters, such close attention to formatting is not even required by the FA criteria which only asks for a consistent citation format (that is, the article should either use footnotes or Harvard referencing, but not both).
• Coverage is broad enough to cover major details of the brewery, but isn't overly excessive in any area, though the history section could perhaps be looked at to see if all the information is needed, and I feel there may be room for some reorganisation of material, and perhaps a section on the brewery as a building and a brewing plant could be created, so that - for example - Protz's comment regarding the brewing methods and equipment could be used more appropriately. But that is part of ongoing development and wouldn't impact on GA status.
• Stable.
• Images pass GA criteria. Though it's worth saying that Samuel Webster's logo could be used, that the pub images could be reduced, and an image of Webster's Yorkshire Bitter could be used. But, again, that is part of ongoing development.
• Article comfortably meets GA criteria, and I assume that some work has taken place since this was nominated for Reassessment. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)