Talk:Beer/GA2

GA Re-review[edit]

In reviewing the article according to the Good article criteria, I have found the article lacking in several of the criteria for GA status and, unfortunately, have to de-list the article at this time. I listed my concerns below. While in-line citations are important, their absence is only one of several concerns. While addressing these other concerns, I encourage the editors to also work on the missing in-line citations because they are of vital importance to passing WP:V.
1. It is well written. - Needs Improvement

The lead section is quite short and does not provide sufficient overview of the subject as expectation in the MOS section WP:LEAD
The External links section is quite excessive and spammy as it becomes a depository for links. I would encourage the editors to trim the section to the most relevant and educational links that pass WP:EL and provide the most benefit to the reader.
In the section Clarifying agent there is a divergence from the encyclopedic tone of the article with the "How to" instruction speaking to the reader in the line "Since these ingredients may be derived from animals, those concerned with the use or consumption of animal products should obtain specific details of the filtration process from the brewer." Similar issues of encyclopedic tone is in the section Styles with the line "Far more important considerations are answers to the questions: do I like this beer and why?". That line is also a bit awkward in that it references the plural "questions" but is only immediately followed by a singular question before others come later in the paragraph.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. - Needs Improvement

The article has the vast majority of it's section completely absent of in-line citations and as such has difficulty being verified in accordance to WP:V. For the sake of brevity, I only tagged a few items of the article that would be well served with an in-line cite.
The absence of cites also makes statements with vagueness or weasel words hard to distinguish from OR such as this line from the section International Consumption that says "Beer is considered to be a social lubricant in many societies.". The natural question is "by whom?". Another example in the Vessels section "Many drinkers consider that the type of vessel influences their enjoyment of the beer. " Again the question is "Who?"

3. It is broad in its coverage. - Needs Improvement

There is not much treatment on consumption rates and lines such as "A lot of beer is sold in beer cans." in the Cans section could use a solid figure with a cite attached to it.
Outside of the mention of health concerns, most of the negative attributes associated with beer is largely uncovered. There have been studies on the effects of beer drinking and violence at sports arenas (leading many facilities to end beer sales early in games). Beer is also generally considered the the main vice for underage drinking due to the frequency and popularity of beer ads.
There is also a bit of US/European centric focus that only gives the scantiest of mention to the perception of Beer in other countries. For instance, it is mentioned that there are breweries in the Middle Eastern countries of Iraq and Syria, yet all forms of alcohol are prohibited in Islam. This presents a point of interest in how beer can co-exist with religious proclamations against it but there is no treatment of this in the article.
I was also surprise that there wasn't much of a mention of Beer in popular culture, with particular notice to how Beer marketing has affected not only the beverage itself but also the marketing medium. During Super Bowl times there are always news report of how the Budweiser Ads help to jack up the price of Super Bowl commercials and turned the SB commercials into a viewership draw in itself.
Also in regards to the Social perception of Beer, are there any reliable sources on "Beer snobbery"? I remember from my ex-husband's beer rating days the difference in perception among Beer connoisseurs who liked European Beers vs American Beers, Micro-brews vs Big Breweries like Bud, etc.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy - Needs Improvement

This is mostly tied into the lacking "breadth of coverage" in regards to some of the negative public perceptions and affects of beer. However, even the ill health effects mention in that section is a bit skimpy and seems to gloss over some of the negative aspects. Overall the article presents a one side presentation of Beer in a sympathetic POV tone.

5. It is stable - Pass

The article is sufficiently stable

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. - Pass

However, do note that the Image:Sjb whiskey malt.jpg has a pending deletion notice for redundancy that should be taken a look at.

I encourage the editors to consider resubmitting for GA status once these concerns have been addressed. The article has clear potential to be an outstanding article and I want to thank the editors for their hard work and dedication in getting the article to this point. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Agne 06:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent points. All noted. Action is being taken to restore the article to what it once was. SilkTork 17:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just putting it down that in the introduction civilization is misspelled. 24.27.58.198 06:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]