Talk:Kyrö Distillery Company/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs) 15:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	A few comments at the bottom.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	A potential issue posted.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	With the caveat that I discuss "source does not support statement" under 2c.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	A question posted.
	2c. it contains no original research.	See comments.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Didn't notice any, other than the open question on the lead.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	A question posted, will need to check each source.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Well, let's see if I can do a proper GA review. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the lead paragraph of the article appears verbatim on Amazon and shangai9.com. Probably a case of them copying from us but without checking when the lead was written I can't tell, and the revision search tool is not cooperating. Pretty much has to be some automatic tool that Amazon uses to fill their product data from Wikipedia or I have in an amazing feat of unconscious glory written it exactly the same way. I created the article on 6 Nov 2017 and back then the lead was almost the same (see [1]). I just concised it a bit at some point.
~~" wondering the lack " seems to be missing a word.~~ Amended to "they were wondering the lack".
~~Shouldn't it be "wondering about the lack"?~~ Ah gosh daggit how clumsy of me, amended.
~~What are the " Dieline Awards" and the "Spirits Business"?~~ Added "package design" to Dieline. Spirits Business is a magazine but that was already in the article, no?
~~There is something about "engravings of the battle" that sounds odd to me, in the caption.~~ Refers to this bit a bit higher up in the article: "The Helsinki-based design agency Werklig created a visual identity for the company, including a custom typeface called Napue Sans based on memorial engravings of the 1714 Battle of Napue found next to the distillery building." Added a ref to it though.
~~A mite unclear what "reliability of taste" means.~~ Amended to "consistency of taste", might be better.
~~Having some difficulty in finding it in the source.~~ I amended it to "consistent outcome" now. From source: "As each botanical varies depending on where and when it is picked, with the oils, water content and aroma varying each time – distilling them and marrying multiple batches allows a much more predictable outcome".
~~A header "Production" to me implies it's about the production process, but no the information is on the products. Not sure if "Background" is the ideal wording.~~ True, amended heading to Products and deleted the subheadings.
~~Maybe the explanation of "Napue" should be where the battle is first mentioned.~~ switched the explanation up where it is first mentioned.
~~"Juuri (root in Finnish) is a new make single malt rye whiskey" what does "new make" mean?~~ Switched new make to unaged.
~~I take that the "Gin Foundry", "munchies.vice", "The Dieline", "Werklig", "bpando", "UPM Biofore", "Yle Uutiset", "Pohjankyrö" and "Ilta-Sanomat" are reliable sources?~~ I have no extensive prior knowledge of Gin Foundry, munchies.vice, The Dieline, Werklig and bpando, but I judged from their professional editing, style, touch, feel, branding, website etc. that they are reliable (i.e. did not find anything that would point out to unreliable). UPM Biofore is a normal Finnish company, Yle Uutiset, Pohjankyrö and Ilta-Sanomat are Finnish newspapers, all reliable.
It seems like The Dieline has an editorial structure and bpando is cited by others sometimes. munchies.vice and Gin Foundry are used on Wikipedia but not much can be found in either direction. Werklig only for low-weight claims.
Munchies is a part of Vice (magazine) so it definitely has professional editing. Gin Foundry claims likewise on their website. Dieline is a primary source for giving out the award and Werklig a primary source for who designed the typeface. bpando is the most blog-ish of all the sources and a supporting one anyways so it can be dropped if need be.
~~Is there any criticism of the company anywhere? I don't think it's impossible for such a group to go without negative attention, but I'd like to confirm.~~ Not that I have come across in any reputable media. The company has only been registered for six years, its first products came out three years ago and all financial parameters have been positive ever since. Of course the products have negative reviews or smth, but these are mostly blog-based sources or similar.

This is the first impression; I'll do a source-by-source check now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now source-by-source:

~~Source #2 does not seem to mention all founders.~~ Sources 3, 4 and 5 confirm the founders, but they also address other points in the paragraph. Source 2 confirms the registration date and incorporated name.
~~"Kyrö Distillery distils whiskey, gin and other spirits from 100% whole-grain rye in regular and small batches" does not appear to be wholly supported by the source #4.~~ A composite from sources 3, 4 and 12, similar to above.
~~Noted a tense issue in "a 1908-built cheese factory used to produce" which sounds like it's still producing; maybe say "factory which used"?~~ Ah, very true, switched to "factory which used".
~~Source #5 does not appear to explain between who the battle was.~~ Hmm, true, deleted.
~~Source #9 might be easier to read with a page number, but that's not obligatory.~~ Added pages.
~~Neither Source #3 nor Source #17 appear to list all the ingredients for Napue gin.~~ Combined with source 4 all of them should be listed. Source 4 just adds a bit of detail to the distilling techinque.
~~Where is the meaning of "Juuri" given?~~ A direct translation, see [2]! One of the sources mentions it IIRC, but I've never assumed direct translations require a ref.
~~"and since 2016 together with Finnish brewery Laitilan Wirvoitusjuomatehdas, a cranberry long drink called Long Kyrö with Napue gin as its base" is sourced to Source #23, yes?~~ Yep, moved source 22 a bit earlier in the paragraph.

General note on positions of refs: I don't think policy is totally clear on how close inline cites should be to a statement and how much one can use composites to make the text flow better (see e.g. WP:CITEDENSE). But I've done a few featured articles with similar style citing without any problems. As long as the ref is at least at the end of the paragraph has usually been good enough.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:20, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for the review! I'll be back home on Wednesday and start addressing your comments! Manelolo (talk) 11:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thx again! I think I've addressed all of your points! Manelolo (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Manelolo: Followed up with some additional comments. With respect to references, I always assume that if a sentence or paragraph is followed by one or several references, that the content is supported by these references. If it isn't I flag it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've addressed your additional comments! Like you said, the content is supported by the refs: But a ref behind a sentence doesn't mean it is only supported by that exact ref. And I've yet to see policy claim this. The other option is to move all refs at the end of the paragraph, but this would only weaken verifiability. Manelolo (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was working off WP:INTEGRITY - if a sentence or paragraph is followed by one or more citations, I expect that these citation(s) support the preceding sentences or paragraph. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moved refs further back to account for all the information in the sentences they follow. Namely the points you mentioned: founders, the distilled spirit types and Napue's ingredients. Thx! Manelolo (talk) 09:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, seems like everything checks out now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]