Talk:Webster's Brewery/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jim Sweeney (talk · contribs) 09:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments

 * This is a good read and just needs some minor tweaks to achieve GA status.
 * Thanks, do you mean entertaining good, informative good or well-written good? Farrtj (talk) 03:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

*There are several sections over cited, which just leads the reader to suspect the references are unreliable. If possible move them to an earlier punctuation point or cut some out. :By that year Webster's had an annual revenue of around £100 million and claimed 7 per cent of the national bitter market.[9][54][55] - does this sentence really need three cites?
 * At the time of its closure in November 1996, the brewery had employed 184 people on a site that had extended to ten hectares.[61][62][63][64] - four cites for three points ?


 * There are three cites because there are three separate claims in that sentence. Farrtj (talk) 22:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Due to its popularity, Green Label was introduced as a keg beer in 1974, replacing Webster's Best.[75][76][77] - three cites

:It had become the highest selling bitter in the south of England and the fifth best selling bitter nationally by 1989.[87][88][89] - three cites *Several more over cites in the Advertising section


 * References need making consistent. There are some with just bare URLs, others with titles in all caps, inconsistent page notation, etc. Keith D (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * References section has several problems as noted above by Keith D
 * Access dates or publishing dates are required for all web sources. Its best to use the template
 * Be consistent with date format we have 2011-05-07 and 15 April 2011 for example. I prefer the second system so those readers who use  month/day/year or day/month/year don't get confused

a note should be added saying so *You need to check all web based references are reliable sites ref 78 for example petes pint pot http://www.petespintpot.co.uk/hops.html
 * Ref 5 Nature's building blocks: an A-Z guide to the elements need the author, publisher, page no, ISBN etc. You could use WP:CITESHORT and the template with the books to a bibliography/references section
 * Is The Brewing industry: a guide to historical records By Lesley Richmond, Alison Turton a book ? see above if so
 * Ref 11 has an author Geoffrey Washington all other web references need to be checked and authors details added where known
 * Ref 19 The Times, 28 August 1928 is there a page or section
 * Other web based references need links to the site for example Ref 44 Lex, See. "Grand Met Warns on Tax Threat." Financial Times [London, England] 11 February 1981: 16. Financial Times. Web. 12 September 2011.
 * They may have come from the web but it's a subscription only site so I can't link to them. Farrtj (talk) 14:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

On hold
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * GA failed no attempts to rectify comments for several days. Also the referencing does not support some of the claims made. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)