Wikipedia:Peer review/Webster's Brewery/archive2

Webster's Brewery

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've done significant work on it since it was last reviewed in May, and I'd eventually like to get the article up to Good Article status. Please bear in mind that information is significantly scarce, and I am waiting until I can get access to the brewing archives before I update it any further, but some indications as to where the article is lacking would be very helpful.

Thanks, Farrtj (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: I found this enjoyable to read despite the problems noted below. It's not nearly ready for GAN, but it has potential. Best of luck with it.

Lead

WP:LEAD suggests that leads be no more than four paragraphs. This article is fairly short. I'd be inclined to merge the first two paragraphs and the last two, making a total of three.

"as well as the de prioritisation of the Webster's brand after... " - "De" is not a word in English. Maybe "as well as diminished emphasis of the Webster's brand after... "?

I'd add a brief mention of the sponsorships too since the lead is to be a summary of the whole article.

One-sentence paragraphs give the article a choppy look in places. It's generally better to expand them or to merge them with another paragraph. The last four sections end with one-sentence orphans.

Victorian success story

"Within 10 years of being started... " - Tighten by deleting "of being started"?

"Initially only supplying the free trade... ". - The concept of "free trade" should be briefly explained for foreign readers who won't know what it means. They might at first think it means "not regulated".

"In 1873, increasing demand saw significant extensions and redevelopment made to the brewery." - Awkward. Perhaps "In 1873, increasing demand led the company to remodel and expand the brewery"?

"In 1900 the Maltings building was built, allowing Webster's to produce its own malt for brewing." - Two repetitions here make this awkward: "building was built" and "Maltings ... malt".

I'll stop here with the line-by-line critique, but it would probably be a good idea to look for the help of a copyeditor to find and fix little problems similar to those noted above. WP:GOCE#REQ is worth checking out.

20th-century consolidation

Did anything significant happen to the company between 1932 and 1961?

"Following the takeover, Webster's continued as the Yorkshire subsidiary of their brewing empire." - Better make clear that "their" means Watney Mann, if indeed it does.

"Watney Mann was motivated by an increase to their pub estate." - Should "pub estate" be briefly explained?

"In 1977, reflecting the trend across the country, just 30 of Webster's 285 tied houses sold cask ale." - Why was that significant?

"Throughout the 1980s, Webster's claimed around 7% of the Yorkshire beer market by volume.[24](subscription required)" - Oops. The "subscription required" belongs in the citation rather than the text.

Main

Why did brands start in 1963? Wasn't Webster's a brand for more than a century before that?

I love the quotation from the Good Beer Guide. Please add italics to the book title.

"brewed to OG 1031.0" - OG needs to be spelled out, abbreviated, and linked here.

"reduced from 3.8% ABV" - Spell out and abbreviate on first use: "3.8 per cent alcohol by volume (ABV)." Use per cent rather than % for internal consistency.

Advertising

Was the beer not advertised in any way before the 1970s?

Are five sources really needed to support the claims in one sentence?

References

Quite a few citations are incomplete. See citation 53, for example. Citations to web sites generally should include author, title, publisher, url, date of publication, and date of most recent access if all those are known or can be found.

The date formatting in the citations needs to be consistent. This is an example of a format that would be fine for a U.K. article: 14 March 1990.

Dates do not normally include the name of the day of the week or the time of day. Citation 1 is very strange in this way. Check for others like this.

Newspaper names like Halifax Courier and Financial Times take italics.

Be careful to use reliable sources per WP:RS to support the claims in the article. For example, is Freepages.history.rootsweb.ancestry.com reliable? Is http://www.cam.net.uk/camra/ale/211/yorkie.html reliable? Simple publication on the Internet is not enough to make a piece of writing reliable.

In most cases, strings like GOOD BEER GUIDE IS ENTHUSIASTIC, PUNCHY, SOMETIMES ACID (citation 48) should be changed to Wikipedia house style even if it appears as all caps in the source. This one should be rendered as Good Beer Guide Is Enthusiastic, Punchy, Sometimes Acid.

The punctuation needs to be fixed in citations like 31. Article titles are set off in quotation marks; newspapers appear in italics.

Further reading

If these two items are important, it might be better to use them to support something in the article. In addition, the first item lacks the details needed for a reader to find it. The second needs a place of publication, and the book title should appear in italics.

Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]