Talk:Grapico/GA1

GA Review[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This is a great article and I think it should be considered for FA nomination. I only have one comment, which is below.

I agree, I will try to improve the lead section. — Navy Blue ^{formerly iDosh} 17:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
I think the first paragraph needs more recent context. Example: Grapico is a caffeine free, artificially flavored carbonated soft drink with a purple color and a grape taste 'that sold over 10 million units last year' or 'is sold in over thirty states.'

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Lead was improved. Again, this is just a great article and really deserves to be put up for FA. --Patrick (talk) 17:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion this article is drenched in original research. The amount of work done to compile the research is admirable, but it belongs somewhere else where it can be reviewed before it passes muster as "verifiable" on Wikipedia. The court cases, trademark applications and incorporation papers establish certain facts, but they don't necessarily paint the picture that the author is giving us here (for example; whether establishing an advertising account or being taxed indicates a particular measure of success). The significance of the details about Grossman's Sons previous business ventures and the proximity of Rochell's offices to the Buffalo Rock plant are unexplained and, like the bunches of grapes on the first bottles, imply the presence of an ingredient --interpretation-- that isn't really here. Furthermore the level of detail presented for things that can be found on the internet (filings and court cases, for example) undoubtedly distorts the picture by leaving out so much that is not so easily uncovered. Again, what we are missing is the treatment that would be given to this research by a historian publishing in a professionally-reviewed medium. My advice would be to pull back on the excess detail, as befits a general-interest encyclopedia, and to look for more secondary sources. --Dystopos (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]