Wikipedia:Featured article review/Beer/archive1

Beer

 * Article is no longer a featured article.

I think that the article should be delisted for these reasons:
 * The references are all jumbled up with external links. Note that this is not the same as there being no references!


 * It is not comprehensive enough, specifically on these points:
 * There is little history since the 16th century (is there really only that one change to the brewing process?)
 * There is no mention of anything to do with the moderate drinking controvery in relation to beer (that is, whether drinking moderate amounts of beer are beneficial or not) This should be mentioned at least.
 * It says little about beers using wild yeasts.


 * There are a few technical reasons for delisting:
 * Some of the subsections are just lists, with no prose. Example: the "Brewing Industry" section. Also, how is it decided which of these breweries are significant or not?
 * Some of the items in the lists are placed contradictorally (for example, sake is in both "Other Types" and "Related Drinks". Where does it belong?)
 * The lead section seems a bit on the short side.

This article has the skeleton of a featured article, but it just isn't there anymore. I hope that it gets improved so it can become featured again. Michelle T 19:12, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Remove. Agree with all points above; the article starts out promising enough with the "Ingredients" and "History" main sections, but then degenerates into lists of bitty trivioids. A "comprehensive description of beer styles" should be elaborated upon in the article and not be relegated to an external site. Wikilinks in subject headings should go. Being the main "beer" article, I'd also like to see something about written about the related subjects&mdash;like homebrewing and Non-alcoholic beer&mdash;here. Cheers! --Plek 19:44, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Remove. Neutralitytalk 01:15, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Remove : As much as it pains me to see a subject so dear to my gut... er... heart face delisting, I must also agree with the above points. A shame, but this article does require quite a bit of review. – ClockworkSoul 01:50, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)