Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
You've done great work improving the article substantially from the rather neglected stub it was. There are some text problems listed below but these are generally easy to fix.
The main limitation of the article, is the small amount of information it contains. Excluding references/links and putting aside the Lead section — which WP guidelines mandate should summarize key elements in the article body — the article has one section: History. The Products section is more or less a catalogue of the product range, sourced from the subject's website, and other than the listing only consists of one sentence. A GA article must be broad (yet focused) in its coverage.
You state it "is known for" having operated continuously since opening. If this is unusual among distillers, say because others suspended operations during the Great War, you should make this clear. Incidentally, "first" opened is redundant given it's presumably only opened once.
This is phrased awkwardly.
Missing a 'the' there, and a comma before the dependent clause.
Currently the text refers to an 1820s Act then says 'shortly' after introduction of that act the still was legalised (it occurred in 1933). The gap between those two occurrences is up to 13 years. Clarifying the details will improve the flow and give interesting context for readers.
Proofread! :P This states all of the novels were set there. Check this is what you mean. You use passive voice here. Rewriting the sentence to use active voice will make it punchier. The possessive is wrongly used: activities not activity's. There's some remaining American English here rather than the British English used elsewhere in the article: 'meters' and 'local law enforcement'. (The last one tends to be used in American English more, but is okay to keep if you prefer it.)
A run-on sentence here. Recast the sentence so this part flows better.
This will benefit from editing to an encyclopedic tone. It has a press release feel to it currently.
It's not particularly significant it is hired out as a corporate function venue, as several distilleries are through VisitScotland’s Business Tourism Unit.
a) This has a corporate annual report tone, and would benefit from rephrasing. b) The dependent clause (part following 2nd comma) doesn't correspond to the preceding part. c) I don't think it fits under a 'History' heading.
Although the official website gives those territories as principal markets, by contrast the Scotch Whisky Association (trade assoc. for Scotch Whisky industry) 'Scotch at a Glance - Facts and Figures on the World of Scotch Whisky'
pamphlet listing the top 10 markets for 2007 gives USA, Spain, France, Singapore, South Korea as the top 5. This difference might be worth looking into.
The Good Article criteria do not require articles to use books as sources. Nonetheless, consulting a wide range of different sources can only help enhance an article. While your solely using websites for referencing is within the GA criteria and other guidelines, that approach tends to suit popular culture topics, like recent television programmes with little or no offline sources available. Whisky is a core Scottish export and naturally a point of Scottish pride, plus there's the long-established status of this distillery. A lot has been written over the years that might be valuable in fleshing out the article. An Amazon book search on 'whisky' or 'scotch whisky' returns many results beyond mere tasting guidebooks; libraries may well carry these. The Scotch regions image page and some of the wiki articles referenced above also cite some titles. Although it's not obligatory, given the organisation's historical nature, I strongly encourage wider use of offline sources here, particularly historical and analytical coverage.
While reviewers can place reviews on hold for a week or so, so small issues can be addressed, this works best for things like copyediting, fixing references, and other such tweaks; requiring larger expansion and restructuring work within a short hold period would not be fair on article contributor(s). It's fairer therefore that I fail it against the GA criteria in its current form. It's difficult for me to point to a strong example article for you to look at; many of the whisky and distillery articles I looked at are brief. Being a trailblazer is no bad thing of course! The Glenlivet is a GA, and is a little longer (although still quite short). Ideas for other things to include will probably come naturally from what you discover in any further research you do.
I understand it can be frustrating to wait for a review, after working hard to improve an article, only to then have a fail result applied. I hope you don't feel disheartened. The article has strengths, and you've put together some good information. It's just not quite GA standard – yet. Please do feel welcome to consider renominating after further developing it. –– Whitehorse1 23:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
You've done great work improving the article substantially from the rather neglected stub it was. There are some text problems listed below but these are generally easy to fix.
The main limitation of the article, is the small amount of information it contains. Excluding references/links and putting aside the Lead section — which WP guidelines mandate should summarize key elements in the article body — the article has one section: History. The Products section is more or less a catalogue of the product range, sourced from the subject's website, and other than the listing only consists of one sentence. A GA article must be broad (yet focused) in its coverage.
You state it "is known for" having operated continuously since opening. If this is unusual among distillers, say because others suspended operations during the Great War, you should make this clear. Incidentally, "first" opened is redundant given it's presumably only opened once.
This is phrased awkwardly.
Missing a 'the' there, and a comma before the dependent clause.
Currently the text refers to an 1820s Act then says 'shortly' after introduction of that act the still was legalised (it occurred in 1933). The gap between those two occurrences is up to 13 years. Clarifying the details will improve the flow and give interesting context for readers.
Proofread! :P This states all of the novels were set there. Check this is what you mean. You use passive voice here. Rewriting the sentence to use active voice will make it punchier. The possessive is wrongly used: activities not activity's. There's some remaining American English here rather than the British English used elsewhere in the article: 'meters' and 'local law enforcement'. (The last one tends to be used in American English more, but is okay to keep if you prefer it.)
A run-on sentence here. Recast the sentence so this part flows better.
This will benefit from editing to an encyclopedic tone. It has a press release feel to it currently.
It's not particularly significant it is hired out as a corporate function venue, as several distilleries are through VisitScotland’s Business Tourism Unit.
a) This has a corporate annual report tone, and would benefit from rephrasing. b) The dependent clause (part following 2nd comma) doesn't correspond to the preceding part. c) I don't think it fits under a 'History' heading.
Although the official website gives those territories as principal markets, by contrast the Scotch Whisky Association (trade assoc. for Scotch Whisky industry) 'Scotch at a Glance - Facts and Figures on the World of Scotch Whisky'
pamphlet listing the top 10 markets for 2007 gives USA, Spain, France, Singapore, South Korea as the top 5. This difference might be worth looking into.
The Good Article criteria do not require articles to use books as sources. Nonetheless, consulting a wide range of different sources can only help enhance an article. While your solely using websites for referencing is within the GA criteria and other guidelines, that approach tends to suit popular culture topics, like recent television programmes with little or no offline sources available. Whisky is a core Scottish export and naturally a point of Scottish pride, plus there's the long-established status of this distillery. A lot has been written over the years that might be valuable in fleshing out the article. An Amazon book search on 'whisky' or 'scotch whisky' returns many results beyond mere tasting guidebooks; libraries may well carry these. The Scotch regions image page and some of the wiki articles referenced above also cite some titles. Although it's not obligatory, given the organisation's historical nature, I strongly encourage wider use of offline sources here, particularly historical and analytical coverage.
While reviewers can place reviews on hold for a week or so, so small issues can be addressed, this works best for things like copyediting, fixing references, and other such tweaks; requiring larger expansion and restructuring work within a short hold period would not be fair on article contributor(s). It's fairer therefore that I fail it against the GA criteria in its current form. It's difficult for me to point to a strong example article for you to look at; many of the whisky and distillery articles I looked at are brief. Being a trailblazer is no bad thing of course! The Glenlivet is a GA, and is a little longer (although still quite short). Ideas for other things to include will probably come naturally from what you discover in any further research you do.
I understand it can be frustrating to wait for a review, after working hard to improve an article, only to then have a fail result applied. I hope you don't feel disheartened. The article has strengths, and you've put together some good information. It's just not quite GA standard – yet. Please do feel welcome to consider renominating after further developing it. –– Whitehorse1 23:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)