Talk:Grodziskie/GA2

GA Review 2

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

Reviewer: Kpalion (talk · contribs) 14:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Initial comments

Hi Neil916, the article is very interesting and well written. I've made some minor changes during the first reading and would now like to offer some suggestions before I move on to checking the references. — Kpalion^(talk) 13:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Overall

• The word "beer" seems overused, sometimes appearing twice in the same sentence. I suggest replacing some instances with synonyms, such as "brew", "beverage", "product", etc., depending on the context. For example: "the beer was filtered to remove suspended proteins that may cause cloudiness in the final beer product".  Done
• Expressions like "the 1800s" are ambiguous. They should be replaced, depending on the intended meaning, by either "the 19th century" or "the first decade of the 19th century".  Done
• Some more obscure units of measurement, like "hectoliter" should be spelled out, especially on first mention. Also, throughtout the article, metric units (like hl) should be converted to imperial and vice versa (like miles).  Done

Lead

• In the first sentence, change "traditional" to "historical". This will help explain why much of the article is written in the past tense.  Done
• "It is a unique style..." "Unique" is superfluous here; perhaps it could be changed to "It is a style that is unique to Poland".  Done
• It mat be good to add a short etymology section immediately after the lead to explain the origins of the one German and two Polish names.  Not done

  I'll need help with that because I have not found any sources that explains the origin of the "Grodzisz" name although I did find it listed as an alternative name in some reliable sources as an "also known as". The Brewer's Association document lists it as the primary name, with "Grodziskie" as an also known as but they clearly missed the mark on the "Grätzer" name. I have been going under the assumption is was a variant of the name resulting from a Polish language issue, like "Beer from America" vs. "American beer". Different forms of the same word, etc. I didn't want to get too repetitive with the explanation of the Grätzer name because that's already discussed in the history section. Neil916 (Talk) 20:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Ingredients

• Second pararaph: "Many of the flavor characteristics of Grodziskie result from the characteristics of the water..." To avoid the repetition of "characteristics", replace one instance with "attributes", "distinctive features", etc.  Done
• "It would have resulted in a higher pH during the early stages of production, which would inhibit the efficiency of the natural enzymes that convert the starch in the grain to fermentable sugars during the mash..." Is this use of the word "mash" correct? I'd think mash is the product and the process is called "mashing".  Done

Production

• Third paragraph: "The carbon dioxide gas..." "Gas" seems redundant here and may be left out.  Done

History

• First paragraph: "By the 16th century, the Ostroróg nobility in the Wielkopolska region of Poland controlled the region." Couple of suggestions here: change "nobility" to "family"; avoid repetition of "region" (replace second instance with "area" or another synonym); you might also think about replacing "Wielkopolska" with its English name, "Greater Poland". Either "Greater Poland (Wielkpolska)" or "Wielkopolska (Greater Poland)" would be fine as well.  Done
• "Industrial-scale brewing developed when Johann Volanus... imported skilled brewers from neighboring regions like Moravia and Bohemia." Greater Poland doesn't border Bohemia nor Moravia (Silesia stands in the way), so it's best to delete the "neighboring regions like" part.  Done
• Second paragraph: "Bernard prayed for the wells, and blessed the source, and a new source of water suddenly filled the Old Market Well." This doesn't make sense to me: how did he bless the source before it sprang up?  Done
• Fifth paragraph: "In 1793, when [[Partitions of Poland|Grodzisk became part of Prussia]],..." It would be better to link more specifically to Second Partition of Poland and not hide it in a piped link; this would also allow you to wikilink Prussia again: "In 1793, when Grodzisk became part of Prussia as a result of the Second Partition of Poland,..."  Done
• If the style was renamed "Grätzer" under German rule, it would be better to be consistent about it and use the German name when writing about the German production.  Done
• Sixth paragraph: it would be good to mention that Grodzisk became part of an independent Poland again in 1918. Otherwise, the reader may be surpised that its name was protected by the Polish government in 1929.  Done
• "United Breweries Grodziskie"; is this the actual name of the company? Didn't it have a Polish name?  Done
• "Production continued during the German occupation of World War II..." It sounds as if the war was being occupied. I'd suggest rewording to something like: "Production continued under the German occupation of Poland during World War II..."  Now the word "during" appeared twice in one sentence. I've changed one instance to "under".
• The paragraph goes smoothly from the Communist-era decline of the style to the ultimate end of its production in 1993. It may mislead the reader to think that the brewery was shut down by the Communists. In fact, Grodziskie continued to be produced throughout the Communist period, which ended in 1989. The brewery was closed by its new owner after it had been privatized as part of Poland's transition to market economy in the 1990s. This part needs a little more research.  Done

Thank you, Kpalion, I think those were all good improvements to the article. I've gone through and made changes to the article that you have identified. See if you think my changes have addressed your suggestions, and if I got some of the changes right, like the Polish name for United Breweries Grodziskie. I spent a lot of time in the past trying to come up with some reliable sources for the brewery's closure but I haven't really been able to identify a good reference for who took over the brewery when it was privatized (Lech, supposedly) and a more precise date of when it ceased operations. Perhaps you know. Thanks for your help, and I'll check back in later when you have a chance to go through the sources. Neil916 (Talk) 19:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, the changes look good. Going through the sources, even in a cursory manner, will keep me busy for some time, so please bear with me. I'll try to look around for a source about the brewery's closure, too. — Kpalion^(talk) 10:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Second reading

Hi Neil916, sorry for keeping you waiting. Some more comments below. — Kpalion^(talk) 22:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• Description, second paragraph: "Brewing and tasting notes from the 19th century and early 20th century..." The source says specifically the notes were from 1914.  Done
• Ingredients, second para: please spell out and wikilink "ppm" the first time it's used.  Done
• Fourth para: "... but by the 1960s the hopping rate had decreased to 2.4 kilograms (5.3 lb) of hops per 100 kilograms (220 lb) of wheat." The source says "per 100 kg of malt". Is 100 kg of fresh wheat equivalent to 100 kg of wheat malt?  Done
• Production, first para: "α-Amylase rest" is not found in the source. If it stays, it should be wikilinked.  I understand that the "infusion (...) to raise the mash to the relatively high saccharification temperature" mentioned in the source is the same as saccharification rest, which, per the linked article is the same as α-amylase rest. But why use a term which is not used in the source? And why is "amylase" capitalized?

  Fixed the capitalization issue. The Zymurgy source is a bit confusing; in the body of the text, it only mentions the 30 minute α-amylase rest at 158°F (70°C). However, the yellow sidebar separately mentioned an optional 10-minute β-amylase rest at 150°F (66°C) (although it doesn't specifically mention it by that name, a rest at that temperature is unquestionably a β-amylase rest). I couldn't find mention of this β-amylase rest in any other source, however and wasn't comfortable including it in this article. The β-amylase rest isn't mentioned in the GR source, either. I also found a document, "instrukcja postepowania technologicznego przy produkcji piwa grodziskiego" on the GR site at [1] that only mentions the α-amylase rest. (I haven't used that document as a reference in this article because there isn't enough information on the pspd site to fully identify its source, author, or date, although the filename suggests it is from 1970). So I referred to it as an α-amylase rest in the article because mashing at that temperature is a clear and unambiguous attempt to inhibit β-amylase by the brewers. Hope that explains it. Neil916 (Talk) 19:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• History, first para: the source says the Ostrorógs controlled the town, not the entire region.  Done
• Second para: "A common legend..." "Common" is unnecessary here.  Done
• Same para: "For over 200 years after the event, the residents of Grodzisk would make an annual procession to Bernard's monastery, walking the approximately 130 kilometers (80 mi)..." The distance cited from Scott (2012) is obviously wrong. The actual distance between Grodzisk and Lubiń is not more than 50 km. Scott cites Warschauer (1893), who doesn't provide the distance. It's best to leave out the "walking the..." part.  Done
• While we're at it, Warschauer (1893) is available online at the Grodziskie Redivivus project webpage, so it would be great to provide a link in the References section.  I can't find a link to download a PDF at the Google Books page. Could it be a regional issue? Perhaps you can download it only if your IP number geolocates to certain countries?

  When I click the link, I get the Google Books page. On the left side, there is a red button that says "READ EBOOK". When I hover my mouse over that button, a menu pops up, with one of the items that says "Download PDF". When I click on the hyperlinked "PDF", I am directed directly to a PDF version of the source that I was able to save offline. Are you not getting that on your end? Neil916 (Talk) 19:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

  No, I can only see a red button that says "GET PRINT BOOK" and "No eBook available" below the button. — Kpalion^(talk) 22:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

  OK, I made that change. Neil916 (Talk) 23:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• Third para: "A brewers' guild was formed in the town in 1601." Again, all sources that mention the guild actually cite Warschauer (1893), who wrote about Ostroróg's confirmation of the guild's statute. The guild itself may have been older. Also, it was a maltsters' and brewers' guild.  Done
• 4th para: "The first documentation of the beer being exported to other regions were from records in the nearby city of Poznań from 1694." The source (again, citing Warschauer) actually says that the first metion of export comes from 1671 in Wschowa. The local hatters' guild rules specified a barrel of Grodziskie as a fine for price undercutting (charging less than 12 groschen for dyeing a hat).  Done
• Same para: "Other records from Poznań document that as a reward for their fine service, the city council in 1712 purchased a barrel of Grodziskie beer for the two mayors of the city." This sounds as if this was unusual, but what the source really says is that, in 1712, the Poznań city council agreed to pay both mayors 500 guilders per year on top of the customary barrel of Grodziskie they had been already receiving for a long time.  Done
• 6th para: "In the late 19th century, the beer began to be exported beyond the province and into other countries, mainly Germany." Firstly, it's a very close paraphrase of the source: Pod koniec XIX w. piwo grodziskie zaczęło przekraczać granicę swojej prowincji i stało się piwem eksportowanym do innych krajów, głównie do Niemiec. Secondly, it repeats the source's error of calling Germany "another country" when, in fact, Grätz was a German town at that time ("other parts of Germany" would be a better expression).  Done
• Same para: "By the 1890s, the five breweries in Grätz produced over 100,000 hectoliters (2,600,000 U.S. gal) of beer, with Grätzer produced in the largest quantities." The source simply says 100,000 hl of Grodziskie (although, in Polish, grodziskie may be somewhat ambiguous; it may refer to the specific beer style or to any beer brewed in Grodzisk).  Done
• 7th para: "Starting in 1922, the production of Grodziskie was continued by only one company, Zjednoczone Browary Grodziskie." Citation needed, but you can use AWY (2011). It's OK to provide a literal English translation of the company's name (United Grodzisk Breweries) in parenthesis.  Done
• Same para: You can format the reference to the Polish ordinance using template:Cite Polish law. Let me know, if you need help using it.  Not done

  I see you've already done that, thank you. Neil916 (Talk) 19:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• "In the early 1980s, different variations of the style were created with different colors and alcohol strengths." Citation needed. You can use Szmelich (1994).  Done
• "After the Communist period in Poland ended in 1989, production continued under private ownership, but ended in 1993, when the brewery was closed due to lack of profitability..." Ławniczak (2007) mentions Lech Browary Wielkopolski (now part of Kompania Piwowarska) as the owner of the last brewery in Grodzisk at the time of its closure.  Done
• "In 2011, the Polish Homebrewers Association formed the Commission for the Revival of the Grätzer Beer." The Polish Homebrewers Association's website doesn't seem to use this name. They refer to "Grodziskie Redivivus" project commission instead . Perhaps it would be best to simply rewrite the same in lower case (and replace "Grätzer" with "Grodziskie") to avoid the appearance that this is an official name: "... formed a commission for the revival of the Grodziskie beer."  Done

Ok. I ended up unexpectedly picking up a new real-life project that is going to be keeping me away from the computer for a while, but I should be able to stop by in the next day or so to wrap this up. Neil916 (Talk) 18:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem, we're not in a hurry. I can put this nomination on hold even for, say, two more weeks, as long as I know you will be coming back to it. — Kpalion^(talk) 20:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Once again, I think those were good suggestions. I have made the edits.

Some notes- I had already linked the Warschauer reference to the Google Books site, which seems like a more stable long term link than the Grodziskie Redivivus project webpage, which might change without notice. The PDF of the original work can be viewed or downloaded from there. Regarding the 1890's production of the 100,000 hectolitres, those figures were also cited in the Grodziskie redivivus paper, which added the statement that Grodziskie had been brewed in the largest quantities. The GR project even hinted that the 100,000 hl was entirely Grodziskie beer, but Szmelich didn't say it so unambiguously, so that's why I said 100,000 hl, mostly Grodiskie. I added the additional cite to GR to the article.

Take another look at it and see what you think. Neil916 (Talk) 17:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Final review

Neil916, thanks for all the changes. The article is almost ready to be listed as a GA. Please see my comments below. — Kpalion^(talk) 17:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Well written; no grammatical, punctuation or spelling errors found. Lead summarizes all major aspects of the topic (description, ingredient and production, and history), no issues with layout, words to watch checked.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   References formatted correctly, in-line citations checked, close paraphrasing checked.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   All main aspects sufficiently covered. Some details of ingredient and production may be of interest to specialists only, while some historical details may be go beyond what would be required in a historical overview, but the level of detail is not overwhelming.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Language is neutral with no noticeable bias.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No edit wars; changes during GA review were limited to corrections suggested by the reviewer.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The article contains only two images; one is from Flickr, with a free license checked by bot; the other is PD, as it comes from CIA WFB. Both images are relevant, but the one in infobox lacks caption. Ideally, the caption should say that this is a modern, U.S.-brewed recreation of the style. It could also explain that the glass shown here is not of the typical conical shape described in the article. Suitable caption has been added.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The only outstanding issue is the infobox image caption, per GA criteria. I've also reviewed the changes implemented after the previous GA nomination and see that all critical objections have been addressed. Other suggestions may be treated as non-binding hints for future improvement. I'm extending the on-hold period for one more week. — Kpalion^(talk) 17:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
   

I have added the caption. Sorry I've been absent in the middle of all this, but real-world projects are consuming my time. Neil916 (Talk) 17:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Great, congratulations on having written a Good Article (and an interesting one, too), Neil916! — Kpalion^(talk) 19:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)