This article is within the scope of WikiProject Beer, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Beer,
Brewery, and
Pub related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BeerWikipedia:WikiProject BeerTemplate:WikiProject BeerBeer articles
Stones Bitter is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to
Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
Not a bitter drinker, personally, more of a lager fan. I've drunk Stones, but I didn't love it. (Also, I think I'm from the wrong side of the Pennines...) Review to follow soon.
J Milburn (
talk)
15:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)reply
The source formatting leaves a lot to be desired, and means that, in places, it's hard to judge the reliability of sources. If you use
Template:Cite news,
Template:Cite book and
Template:Cite web then you probably won't go too far wrong. At the moment, the formatting is such a hodge-podge that it really weakens the article, which is a shame, as most of the sources look to be good ones.
Will leave this till last as it is the major issue, and I take your point, although perfect referencing is not a pre-requisite for GA status.
Farrtj (
talk)
03:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)reply
"Stones was described at the time as "more of a religion [in South Yorkshire] than a beer."" I know leads are often unreferenced, but a quote will really need attribution.
The history section is difficult to follow in places. For instance, you don't actually mention the take-over by Bass. Anything discussed in the lead should also be discussed in the article. Same with Coors. These take-overs are important parts of the brand's history.
Avoiding undue repetition is important, but it's clearly a part of the story of this beer; equally, there's going to be repetition on articles about authors and their books, or actors and the films in which they starred.
J Milburn (
talk)
15:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)reply
You refer to the difference between keg and cask drinks, but you never really clearly say when each started.
The cask variant was started in 1948. The keg version was started sometime after the Bass takeover, possibly when the beer began to go nationwide but I really don't have the answer. Sometime between 1968 and 1978.
Farrtj (
talk)
03:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)reply
"(Columbus, Zeus and Tomahawk) and a blend of European hops (Magnum and Admiral)" Links to the list entries would be beneficial here
With regards to the recipe, does it only contain hops, barley and water?
Try to avoid personifying publications. A magazine doesn't say something, its writers do.
It's a shame that the article is unillustrated. It would benefit from, firstly, a free picture of a pint of Stones, and, secondly, a non-free image of the Stones logo. Due to the discussion of the marketing and the logo itself, it would certainly meet the NFCC.
There are also issues with imperfect prose, but these are things that can be ironed out later. Right now, what I'd really need to see was the source formatting sorted, the lead expanded and the history section smoothed out. After that, we'd be looking for images, a source-check and a copyedit. If they work out, I'd imagine that the article will be ready for GA status. I'll put the article on hold for now. Hope you're able to work with this stuff!
J Milburn (
talk)
16:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Ok, the article has been on hold for several weeks, and has not been edited in nearly two. The issues with the references remain. As such, I'm going to close this review at this time. I urge you to give the references the attention that they need and then to renominate; if I'm available, I'd be happy to do another review of this article once the issues with the references have been resolved.
J Milburn (
talk)
15:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Pretty well written article overall. Some initial comments are as follows:
Article seems to lean a bit towards promotional. Peacock words used in a few places in the beginning. Also, in the advertising section, the amount of weight / space given to repeating the talking points of the various campaigns and commercials seems a bit promotional.
Previous reviewer mentioned reference formatting. I did not go there as that is a not a requirement for GA.
Uses the term "Brewery Conditioned" which is think is rare/ unclear for many. The internal link goes to a re-direct to an article which does not explain or even mention this term. Substitute a different term?
Well that uses yet another unfamiliar-elsewhere term. In the US kegs are simply a packaging / purchasing method. Suggest using more explanatory wording in the article. North8000 (
talk)
10:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)reply
I don't see any such link in the article. But now I'm starting to understand. The term has sort of the opposite meaning in England vs. the US. In England it sort of means "less real" (because you have "traditional cask beer" to compare it to, which we don't have in the US) In the US it sort of means "more real" (e.g compared to canned beer) or "beer for a really big party" (vs. buying cans and bottles)North8000 (
talk)
10:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)reply
That takes care of me but not the readers. But now I know enough to try to tweak it so that dummies like me can understand. North8000 (
talk)
10:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)reply
The still remaining use of six sentences verbatim which are direct quotes of promotional material still makes it seem a bit promotional. But those quotes are informative. I would not fail or hold it for this but that's just a thought.
If you have a slight problem with them then I have no problem removing them. Look at what I've done for now, I think it fills the middle ground.
Farrtj (
talk)
10:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)reply
My only comments relevant to the GA criteria are mentioned above. I think it's nearly there. But since I first took this up today, either way I'd keep it open for several more days for others to comment. North8000 (
talk)
20:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Issues that I had with respect to GA criteria have been resolved. I plan to pass this article. But since I just took it up a few days ago I'll leave it open a few more days in case there are other comments. North8000 (
talk)
11:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Covers everything that I can think of. Quick web search found no material on major uncovered areas.North8000 (
talk)
01:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each
Has had a few minor tweaks in the area during the review process. I decided that the main remainign material that might sound promotional )quotes from ads) is useful historical information. North8000 (
talk)
01:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute
Has one image, with article-specific rationale. With caption and alt text. More images would be nice but I know how tough that is in Wikipedia. North8000 (
talk)
01:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)reply
I left this open some extra time for other comments. I pass it. I will implement details. If you wish to further refine it, one idea might be prose and organization that has the large amount of provided information items knitted together into more of a flow / continuity. Nice article! North8000 (
talk)
01:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)reply
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Stones Bitter. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.