Talk:Boddingtons Brewery/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 18:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have offered to review this article and I will be starting in the next couple of days. Other editors are welcome to join in. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First read through

~~Lead - There is a double "most" in the opening paragraph.~~
~~1778-1970 - "When Boddington joined the brewery in 1832" "He" would be better in this sentence.~~

~~"The family retained an association with the firm" Replace "association" with "interest" because the word "association" is used again in the next sentence.~~

~~"shareholding of the company" should be "in the company".~~

~~"In 1970 Philip retired, and Ewart Boddington assumed the head of the company." This sentence is not well constructed, you can't really assume a head. What relation was Ewart to any other Boddington?~~

~~1970-1989 - "In the early 1970s the famous Boddingtons logo was introduced, depicting a barrel and two bees." The "was introduced" would be better at the end of the sentence.~~

~~"The bee is the symbol" - "has been" would be better.~~

~~"In 1974 the company was still restricted to a 70 mile radius of Manchester." What does this sentence mean - how was it restricted?~~

~~"By 1985 Strangeways ..." This sentence should have two commas rather than semicolons.~~

~~"with bitter consisting of over 90 per cent of production" - a better word would be "constituting".~~

~~"could make the Boddingtons brand a national one" Other references to the brand name seem to be in italics.~~

~~Whitbread era - The first sentence is too long and should be split into two.~~

~~"rejuvenated from industrial slump and irrevocably trendy." This sentence seems a bit awkward and "irrevocably trendy" should not be used and violates WP:NPOV.~~

"Banks's beer" should be "Banks' beer" Actually the company spells it as "Banks's". [1] Farrtj (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline under InBev - "In September 2004 InBev announced ..." Perhaps you should explain that InBev was the result of a merger.

"In May 2010 it was speculated by The Times that" should be replaced by "In May 2010, The Times speculated that"

That's all I have time for at the moment. I will continue later. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Products - Boddingtons Draughtflow - "Salmesbury" should be "Samlesbury".

Boddingtons Cask - "Its volumes in 2010 were around 50,000 barrels, a sharp fall from as recently as 2001 when it sold 290,000 barrels annually." This is an awkward sentence. What about splitting it in two, with the second being "This was a sharp fall because, as recently as 2001, there had been annual sales of 290,000 barrels."

Advertising - "Boddingtons began to be advertised " - "was advertised" would be better.

The "playboy" wikilink in "transgender playboy cow " should lead to Playboy (lifestyle).

"The Independent called it out as bad advertising" What does this mean? Calling someone out is usually the preliminary to fighting a duel!

"To mark the occasion" should be followed by a comma.

"It was criticised for capitalising on its Manchester heritage ..." would be better phrased "It was criticised for capitalising on the Manchester heritage of the beer ..."

I have read the article through to the end now. In general, the prose is quite acceptable. I will look at the other GA criteria later. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	See comments above. Prose now satisfactory.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Layout and section headings are suitable.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	See 2b.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Some of the references are bare urls, wrongly formatted, incomplete, dead links or in other ways unsatisfactory. These include links currently numbered: 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 17, 21, 22, 25, 26, 38, 39, 40, 42, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 58. There has been some improvement to the inline citations but not the ones I considered of greatest importance. As the article met the other GA criteria I have improved the references myself. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	It covers the topic adequately.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	There is little change in the article from day to day apart from the nominator's improvements.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Two images have suitable licenses and two have appropriate "Fair use" rationales, showing the company logo and a poster in a way that text could not.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are appropriate and are properly captioned.
	7. Overall assessment.

References

Hi, I have made some edits to this article in the past, so probably can't be too involved in the review. There are a number of issues with references that I have previously raised. I'm not sure whether these need fixing for GA. However, for completeness I'll put them on the record again:

ref 20 and ref 21 appear to be links electronic resources at University of Leicester's library. I assume to those attending said institution, these links take the user to a publication of some sort. Problem is, for the 99.98% of the UK population alone who don't attend UoL these links are meaningless. Is it possible we can at least have details of the publication it refers to so that readers can track down the publication by other means?
The Grocer, November 10, 1990 (ref 50) Are there any more details on this an article name or page number? Pit-yacker (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will be looking at the references, their formatting and reliability soon. At the moment refs 20 and 21 are dead links. The important thing is that there is attribution for any statement that is liable to be challenged, whether or not that reference material is widely available. Research studies for example may require subscriptions to a journal in which they are published or fees to view. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is my point. I suspect if you are on the University of Leicester's internal network these links aren't dead. Even if they are in a subsciption based journal, I can bet that UoL's internal network isn't the only way to get access to these publications. That is why I was requesting more details about the source rather than just a link. Pit-yacker (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I've dealt with all of the issues raised in the first read through.Farrtj (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have put the GA review on hold for 1 week to allow time for the referencing to be improved, as mentioned in 2b in the table above. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There have been some improvement to the referencing and I have made further improvements myself and I now think this article meets the GA criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]