Talk:Stones Brewery/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 23:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Tick list
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Comments

 * Pass
 * Images. The images meet GA criteria. Additional comments: It would be useful to have an image of Stones Bitter. I am doubtful of the value of the Nice Try image as the beer is not mentioned in the text, is unknown and short lived. There are two brewery images - from the captions and from reading the body text I am assuming these are two different breweries, thoough it is not clear. It might be useful to have a section for the brewery buildings, and to either place both images in that section, or decide which image would be best to keep and which to drop if there isn't room for both.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  09:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The images meet GA criteria. Additional comments: It would be useful to have an image of Stones Bitter. I am doubtful of the value of the Nice Try image as the beer is not mentioned in the text, is unknown and short lived.
 * I've placed several images of Stones Bitter up with the correct license but they've all been deleted by people. What I've got at the moment is really a sort of placeholder until I can take a picture of Stones myself, and I think it's better than nothing for the time being. Farrtj (talk) 19:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Reference section. There is an appropriate reference section.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  11:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Stable. No edit wars.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  11:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Original research. There's no evidence of OR.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  18:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Unclear
 * Lead. The WP:Lead is always a problematic area. I think that some text may be reorganised in the article as we go through, so we can look at the lead again later.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  11:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Sources. I've not been through the whole article yet, but I'm struggling to confirm some facts in order to pass "unbiased". "Victorian success story" seems rather POV as a title, and Origins, Founding, Early days, etc, would be more neutral titles - when looking at the statement "grown to become one of the largest and best regarded business concerns in Sheffield" and "Stones is said to have earned his success through clever marketing and a consistently good product", three are three sources to support this - when tracking down one of them (no. 13 - Mud, Sweat and Beers : A Cultural History of Sport and Alcohol, p14) I found nothing to support that statement. I've searched through the book for William Stones and Sheffield and Chesterfield, but found nothing relevant. Is that source placed there by mistake?  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  11:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've deleted the Mud, Sweat reference. It originally referred to a fact that is no longer included in the article referring to the rush by brewers to buy pubs in the period.Farrtj (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Neutral. See comments above.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  11:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Major aspects. I think that all major aspects are covered, though people do like to have some information on brewery buildings, and while the information may be implied in parts, there is little easy available direct information on the brewery building. A little clarity regarding the building - perhaps a section devoted to the building - would be useful.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  18:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've certainly considered that, although I'm not sure I have enough concrete information on the brewery building(s). Do you know of any good examples on Wikipedia of information about brewery buildings as a sort of stylistic guide would be helpful.Farrtj (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Fail
 * Prose. Prose needs to be "clear" - that doesn't mean free from spelling and grammatical errors, but that the reader is able to understand the information without a struggle. The Victorian success story section is telling the story of the founder of the brewery and the brewery itself at the same time, and the two are getting mixed. It is also not clear when the brewery was founded, as some sources say 1895 -, - when the brewery was registered, the article says 1856 in the lead, though is vague about it in the main body, saying "Watts died on 9 May 1854 aged just 46.[3] Two years later Stones bought out Watts' share of the business from his brother, leaving Stones as the sole partner", forcing the reader to work out what that means in terms of "founding" the brewery; though also says "By 1847 Joseph Watts and Stones were brewing...." It helps to read text with your "reader's hat" on, and to think about someone who knows nothing about the topic reading the text for the first time, and to ask yourself - "would they understand this"?  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  11:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Inappropriate tone: "our two likely lads".  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  12:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I'll be honest, I'm not entirely which date to plump for myself. 1895 seems misleading though, for the reason that Stones had been brewing for almost 50 years before that. I'm not helped by the Stones logos either. During the 1980s and early 1990s the cans said "Estd 1860". Now the logo says "Estd 1865". Neither of these dates are accurate. I've considered 1868, as that's when the brewery moved to its current/former premises. But then is that entirely accurate, as it was founded by Shepherd Green & Hatfield by at least 1837. For example John Smith's bought the Tadcaster brewery in 1858 or so, but the brewery itself dated to 1758 and thats the date the JS promotion uses. Also, I've split the Stones bio and early brewery history into separate paragraphs.Farrtj (talk) 22:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Focus. There is a lot of information in the Stones Bitter section. Consideration needs to be given to either reducing the content or splitting it off into a standalone article per WP:Summary style and WP:WHENSPLIT. Some information is excessive or inappropriate, such as "Several pubs had 6am licenses to cater for workers returning home from the night shift", which has nothing to do with the brewery or the brand.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  12:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a fair consideration. I think it's still up in the air over whether to split or not.Farrtj (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a useful, informative and well researched article and promises well for the nominator's plans to improve a series of beer articles. There are a number of issues arising as I read through, but nothing major, and I feel that the article will be able to be tidied up to meet GA criteria with just a little bit of work. I will finish the review later today.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  12:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment

Hold
Articles meets many of the GA criteria. The areas that need attention are listed above. The main concerns are:


 * Focus. The Stones Bitter section needs attention. Either trim or split into a standalone article.
 * Okay could you split it for me please, including the advertising section because with the exception of the first sentence, it all relates directly and only to Stones Bitter rather than the brewery itself.Farrtj (talk) 22:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Prose. Mostly a rewrite to bring out the history more clearly.

I'll put this on hold for the standard seven days to allow work to be done. I will now be away in France for the Nice-Cannes Marathon with limited internet access, but I will look into this when I get back at the end of the month.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  18:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I note there is positive work being done on the article. Well done. I'll look into the split when I get back from France.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  11:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. I've continued to improve the article, although I'm holding fire slightly until the split occurs.Farrtj (talk) 14:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've made a crude cut and paste split of the beer to Stones Bitter. An appropriate summary of the main details of the beer needs now to be created in this article.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  12:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've briefly summarised itFarrtj (talk) 13:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

2nd look
Wiping the blackboard, and looking through again so it is clear what still needs attention, or if the article can now be listed.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  16:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Pass
 * Images.
 * Stable.
 * Reference section.
 * Focus. Focus is OK now that Stones Bitter has been split.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  17:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Original research.
 * Major aspects.
 * Sources. A lot of the sources are print, though these days many print sources are available online. It's worth doing a search to see if a print source is available online, as that is a great asset for readers and editors. I have found a couple and linked to them. They may be more to be found.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  17:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Sources confirm that what is said is accurate and neutral.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  17:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Prose.
 * moS.
 * Fail


 * Unclear

Pass
The lead could do with a bit of attention now that Stones Bitter has been split off. There is material there on the advertising that more properly belongs in the Stones Bitter lead. However, that's for ongoing development, the article is neat enough and informative enough to meet GA criteria. Listing.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  17:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)