Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stones Brewery/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 15:18, 2 June 2012 [1].

Stones Brewery edit

Nominator(s): Farrtj (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it seems to be up to a decent standard. Farrtj (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (spotchecks not done). The references are a total mess, to put it bluntly. Some might not care all that much about the nitpicks of formatting, but in this case the references are formatted so badly and so inconsistently that it makes it impossible to verify any of the article's content. Although it is not required, I strongly recommend using the citation templates in order to make the citations clearer and more consistent. The following list gives some specific concerns, with ref numbers based on this version of the article:

All items which are available online should have hyperlinks, even if they are behind paywalls.
All books should provide ISBNs.
Be consistent in use of "p5" vs. "p. 5" for page numbers. What does the "p. [1]" notation mean?
Be consistent in use of commas for large numbers: "12,345" vs. "12345"
What makes Ref 2 a reliable source? They specifically state: "We are not professional researchers". Even if they are somehow reliable, the citation is just the link and page title. More information needed!
It's a transcription of an historical document, not original research, so it's fair game to me.Farrtj (talk) 02:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What type of publication is Ref 3? Might be a book, but I really have no idea.
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 02:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 10 is blatantly incomplete. It doesn't even give a title!
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 02:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of thing should have been done before the FAC began, and will need to be addressed before it can continue. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose same reason as last FAC. Reference cleanup needed version

- Ref 49, 23: bare link
- 10: Author, location, title missing. Newspapers' pages change according to the location in some cases
- 70: Campaign 18 December 1987 New campaigns, what is this??? Book/magazine/news???
- 33: "William Stones Llimited." [sic] Financial Times [London, England] 24 November 1966: 6. Financial Times. Web. (what does this mean?) 20 August 2011. V/S William Stones Ltd The Financial Times (London, England), Friday, 1 December 1961; p. 4; Edition 22,561: Inconsistent formatting
- 73: questionable reliabilty
  - The blog of a notable published beer historian ought to be reliable.Farrtj (talk) 00:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted the above.Farrtj (talk) 02:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reference formatting may not be perfect but I can vouch that they are all accurate in the information that they refer to. Given that the article is entirely my own work I can vouch for this.Farrtj (talk) 02:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, just as Essjay vouched for the material that he contributed. The reader needs to be able to verify the information for themselves, as that is one of the primary purposes of an encyclopedia. Currently that is impossible. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well very little of my material is available freely online. Most of it is behind a paywall.Farrtj (talk) 09:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please do not strike comments written by reviewers. Instead, leave a note explaining what changes hace been made to address the issues. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prose comments. In addition to the referencing problems I pointed out above, there are some problems with the prose. In general, the tone feels more like a documentary than an encyclopedia article, and in some places it seems to assume that the reader is familiar with brewery lingo. Here are some specific issues: Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"leaving Stones as the sole partner." By "partner", do you mean "owner"? The current phrasing doesn't make sense to me.
"the modestly sized Cannon Brewery on Acorn Street in the Shalesmoor district of Sheffield" This level of detail about the brewery's location isn't necessary, in my opinion. I suggest removing "Acorn Street", as well as the "Rutland Road" that appears later.
"In 1880 Stones built two 90 quarter maltings in Worksop" I have no idea what a "90 quarter malting" is.
"William Stones became a limited company in 1895 with £275,000 of capital (£30 million in 2011)" The phrasing of the parenthetical is ambiguous. Does it mean that £275,000 would be worth £30 million in 2011? Or that the amount of capital had grown to £30 million in 2011? Assuming it's the first case, it should be made clearer that this is an approximation. Also, a citation should be provided for the conversion immediately afterwards, not at the end of the sentence. Also also, why is this conversion to 2011 values when the rest of the paragraph uses 2010 values? Shouldn't they all be 2012?
"best regarded business concerns in Sheffield" What is the difference between a business and a business concern? Also, "best regarded" is a WP:Peacock phrase that doesn't add anything worthwhile to the sentence.
"Annual shareholder's meetings were held at the Cutlers' Hall in Sheffield." Is this really important enough to be mentioned?
"In 1919 The Crown Inn opposite the brewery" Which brewery? Could be either the Cannon brewery or the Brunswick brewery.
"Such stagnation was common throughout the British brewing industry in the 1950s" I oppose the metaphorical use of "stagnation". Also, why did this happen?
"William Stones joined the acquisition trail" I have no idea what an "acquisition trail" is.
"In 1959 William Stones bought Ward & Sons of Swinton, local bottlers of beer and mineral water for £100,000" This phrasing suggests that these dudes bottled beer and water for £100,000. Presumably what you meant to say was "In 1959 William Stones bought Ward & Sons of Swinton, local bottlers of beer and mineral water, for £100,000." One little comma can make a big difference.
"The Ward bottling plant was superior to Stones' own, and capable of filling and labelling 8,000 bottles an hour." It's not clear to me what "superior" means here. My first guess would have been "more efficient", but the second clause discusses efficiency, so that's not it.
"High gravity brewing was introduced by the 1980s" I have no idea what high gravity brewing is. Link? Explanation?

Sorted all the listed prose issues with the exception of the citation positioning for the currency conversions.Farrtj (talk) 04:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Per Cryptic and Redtigerxyz. I agree with most of their comments. Regardless of whether references are freely avaliable or not, they should be presented in a professional fashion in an FA. Having references like numbers 45 and 46, where the reader cannot tell exactly what is being cited, is no good. Many refs to newspaper articles and such don't have proper titles, just the name of the publication. Also, annoying all caps are all over the place in the cites, and I don't see why word counts are important when some refs don't even have page numbers, which are more vital and should be provided when possible. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Comments - As far as company leads go, this is one of the better ones. It sums up the company in a timeline format, by reaching and covering every major point in the company's history, yet still showing a variety in the summary. Bravo for the lead, if nothing else. Oakley77 (talk) 20:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.