Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Absinthe/archive1

Absinthe
self-nomination: a number of people have worked on this article to get it to its current state, which I think is up to FA standards. It has gone through peer review and is currently listed as a good article. Ari 00:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think that the article could use a good checking for style. I just cleaned up one section that was a little iffy (removed words like "downright," as well as some scarequotes), and a quick glance shows that the whole article could use a final cleanup.  Otherwise, it looks quite good.  Exploding Boy 00:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the corrections, hopefully any others can be ironed out, I know the topic but am not always grammar inclined when it comes to encyclopedia type standards. -- Ari 01:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Question: How do you pronounce "absinthe"? Some people say ab-sin-thayˈ while others say abˈ-sinth (like "absent" with a lisp).  Just a question.  Jtmichcock 01:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In english it's commonly pronounced ab -sinth (like 'synth' esize) where as in french it is pronounced ab -sant. -- Ari 01:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it would be a good idea to say something about the different pronounciations at the start of the article. This is one of those really "basic" things that any encylopedia article should address.  Jtmichcock 21:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea, I added IPA pronunciation for both english and french, as best I could (not being very familiar with IPA). -- Ari 22:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 *  Conditional Support. There are only three issues I have with this article, all of them small:
 * Ordering of sections. I would like it of the "Czech" section was included in, or placed nearer to, the production section.
 * Why are the countries mentioned in the regulations mentioned, and other countries omitted? If it's because those other countries don't have regulations regarding absinthe, that fact shoulod be mentioned.
 * Copyedit. We all speak English here, but we also all make mistakes.
 * Overall a very good article, I just need a few clarifications/corrections before I lend my full support. RyanG e rbil10 02:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As the czech section has to do with production and preparation I reordered it underneath the preparation section. I added some clarifacation of the regulations.  As absinthe wasn't banned in many countries they never made any regulations about it.  All EU countries must comply with the EU regulations, only france is specifically mentioned as they have additional laws. -- Ari 07:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * I think it might be wise to give "Czech absinthe" its own article. Aside from the placement issue above, it is largely uncited. For example, the statement that the method of preparation is fake and for tourists doesn't have a source; the cite provided instructs readers how to do it, but doesn't say when it was invented or that it's just for rubes. In addition, there seems to be some dispute about the accuracy of the rest of the section (see the article's talk page). As I understand it, Czech absinthe is its own distinct thing, so maybe giving it its own page would kill four birds with one stone.


 * The talk page is all but addressed and I know of sources for most of what is said and will find them. Ironically the bohemian style section was its own article under absinth but a number of people questioned why it wasn't part of absinthe so it was cleaned up and put there.  Perhaps a sub-page under absinthe would best satisfy concerns? -- Ari 04:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The first two sentences about the ban in the US make it seem as though the law is somehow contradictory, but the FDA doesn't govern alcohol so the two aren't really related. It's apples and oranges.


 * The regulations are contradictory, the FDA controls substances in alcoholic beverages, such as the use of proper food-coloring. Customs also points to the FDA for more information about the regulation. -- Ari 04:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Absinthe is banned, as I understand it, as having an unapproved food aditive, that's why it's the FDA that regulates it. It's not a controlled substance, so its legal status is iffy. It's illegal to make it in the US, because the FDA regulates additives in food manufacturing. But FDA has no enforcement mechanisms (or legal standing, really) to prevent people from possessing it, owning it, consuming it or probably buying it, except that unapproved food or food additives can be seized by Customs (on FDA's orders) at the border.  &middot; Katefan0 (scribble)/ poll 13:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Also in the US section, there are a lot of unsourced "probably" and "occasionally" statements. I know reliable sources can be tough to find on this, as I've tried many times, but something needs to be in there to back up those claims. Since it's stating that the position is based on general consensus between American absinthe drinkers, it might be good enough to use an absinthe forum as a reference, but I wouldn't bet my life on it when it comes to FAC.


 * I can clean that up a little bit and provide a basic source, however some of the speculative language is because the most anyone so far has dealt with the regulations is customs seizures so the exact legal ramifacations for something like selling absinthe in the US is unknown, although I could see if I can find information about companies breaking other FDA regulations. -- Ari 04:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As you know, I think this is a great article. With a few tweaks, it will definitely have my support. Kafziel 03:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've clarified the czech section and added citations. If you think more should be included (such as a citation for companies hyping thujone) I can add those as well.  I've tried to clarify the US laws as well as adding citations.  It states absinthe is occasionally seized by customs because even a blatant declaration of "absinthe" on customs forms results in hit and miss seizures. -- Ari 17:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There are three separate bullet points about US customs, all basically saying the same thing - customs doesn't like Absinthe and they will sometimes, for various reasons, confiscate it when they find it. That could all be under one bullet point and covered by the source you cite. I think that's about the last of my comments before my support - it looks good. Kafziel 17:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 *  Minor object Comment There seems to be a factual omission that makes the article look slightly incomplete: traditional Scandinavian absinth liquor. There are (or have been) several brands, at least one of which is currently sold by Systembolaget, see http://www.systembolaget.se/SokDrycker/Produkt?VaruNr=214&Butik=0&SokStrangar=, and I seem to remember seeing similar drinks in Norway, too. I don't know anything about their legal status in pre-EU times, but there seems to be some history waiting to be discovered. Given that the legal hisotry in various European countries is so prominent in the article, I think that there should be a sentence or two about this. Kosebamse 11:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find much information about Bäska Droppar, however not everything that is similar to absinthe is absinthe. On the anise side there are a number of products such as pastis, Ouzo Arak, etc. On the wormwood side some Bitters use artemisia species and some of those even use grande wormwood, vermouth was originally flavored with grande wormwood and some still are.  The use of grande wormwood as an wine flavoring goes back many centuries and was used in ancient times as a stomach cure and to wean babies.  Although interesting history and products none of these are specifically absinthe.  Bohemian-style absinth isn't really absinthe but it gets a mild pass because it started the revival and is often marketed so closely with absinthe.  An article on the use of wormwood and other herbs in alcohol might be good but is beyond the scope of this. -- Ari 17:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * My point was more about the legal side of things - it would be interesting to know whether absinthe or similar liquors have ever fallen under prohobition in places where they have been produced traditionally (Bäsk is quite unlike absinth, not as high in alcohol and without anise, and it might be a far older recipe than absinthe in the modern sense). But I would not oppose the FA request because of this. Kosebamse 19:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, I think I understand now. AFAIK there really weren't any legal issues beyond the european countries mentioned.  The ban really had more to do with corporate and political motivation such as wine-producers losing sales and the temperance movement than absinthe or anything in it.  Countries were absinthe wasn't the most popular drink and there weren't pressures from political parties, corporations and even racism towards the french never made a big deal about it and its legal status remained the same as any other alcoholic beverage. -- Ari 19:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Support, as my comments above have all been addressed. Nice job, Ari. Kafziel 19:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong support. I think it is an excellent article. -Cribananda 01:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * In the art and absinthe section, it says: "According to Gauguin, Van Gogh had been acting in an unstable manner almost a week before the incident and had flung the only absinthe Gauguin had seen him order, before drinking it." Is this what was intended? I've read that VG tossed a glass of it at PG, but in this rendering, how does one "fling" the stuff and then drink it? Sfahey 14:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right that should be "instead of drinking it." -- Ari 14:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Object, prose is average, run on sentences and miss ordered words are common, like these from the lead;
 * Absinthe had its start in Switzerland as an elixir, but is more well-known for its popularity in late 19th and 20th century France, particularly among Parisian artists and writers, whose romantic associations with the drink still linger in popular culture.
 * Modern evidence shows it to be as safe, or dangerous, as ordinary alcohol.


 * In addition to langauge problems there are comprehensivness issues, the article never discusses at any length the the mentioned dangers or evidence to the contrary (unless you count an quote about undetailed "scientific studies" from an author of a "popular" book on the subject). The regulation section is unnecessarily broken up into sections which further serves to highlight missing locales, I know that it is sold in New Zealand and a lot of other places, which leads me to believe that this setion needs to be refactored.--Peta 06:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Prose. There have been a number of copyedit changes but I will go through it again and see if I can find anything else.
 * Studies. I have just recently added information about one 19th century study.  I don't think we really need a large number of these types of studies. Some of the modern research is at thujone but I can bring over the conclusions.
 * Regulations. The regulations section is broken up into countries as different countries have different regulations.  Many countries never banned it and never payed enough attention to even put regulations on it, I believe this is mentioned in the article.  I don't see a reason why the regulations section should list countries it's legal in with no regulations.  Other countries may have had regulations but neither I nor the page you listed provide any sources as to what those may have been or still are. -- Ari 14:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As is the section heading only serve to (1) lenghthen the TOC and (2) highlight that this section is not comprehensive.--Peta 23:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am unsure what your objection is. The section is "Regulations" to list every country and then say "no regulations" is pointless.  The link you posted contains no sourced regulations in any country that isn't already listed either directly or indirectly (as being part of the EU) thus I don't see how the section is not comprehensive. -- Ari 00:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * My point is, the subsections are completly unnecessary as they blow out the TOC and some are a single sentence long, and that not enough effort has been made to make this part of the article comprehensive.--Peta 01:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * They could be bolded instead of subsections although that would seem to not match wiki formating guidlines. Although it blows out the TOC I think having a TOC link to say US regulations (a common topic) is important.  What do others think?
 * Can you provide specific example of how this section is not comprehensive? -- Ari 02:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I already have, there are tens of courties with laws which allow or disallow the drink.--Peta 03:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Name one that you have a source for and is not part of the EU. The only one on that list I saw not on this page was Brazil, which was listed as "unconfirmed" and I am looking for any solid data about it.  Beyond that they  are part of the EU, already listed or have no regulations.  Perhaps I missed one. -- Ari 03:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * To elaborate the only ones on the list posted that aren't already mentioned are Brazil,Israel,Norway,Russia and South Africa, of those only Brazil is listed as having regulations and those are unconfirmed. Searches for regulations for all has turned up empty. -- Ari 04:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I added some information about thujone toxicity and rearanged a few words/sections to attempt to better the flow. -- Ari 19:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Support - I think it's a good, well-referenced article. Raul654 13:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Absinthe is a French word and the correct pronounciation is ab-sAAnth with the emphasis on the 2nd syllable.