Talk:Alcoholic beverage/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 16:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to review this. I like a nice drink like this or this, but don't go overboard, so hopefully I've got a neutral(ish) point of view. There are four ^{[citation needed]}s in the article, and a number of lists, but hopefully we'll address those as we go. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tool reports

No disambig problems

The dead links script here returns two dead links here and here.

Lead

Lead looks a bit short.

The referencing in the opening picture cites where ether gets its name, but not ethanol. Our own article claims a different reason for the etymology.

"An alcoholic beverage is a drink containing ... often small quantities of other consumable alcohols." probably wants citing, but not necessarily here. Ideally, the main body of the article should say what other alcohols could be expected.

The Center for Alcohol Policies source (whose link in the lead goes to a holding page but I assume is this) only reports about 50 countries, while the lead claims "over 100".

Probably worth mentioning here that some countries ban alcoholic drinks totally.

Maybe worth mentioning a brief summary of history of control of alcoholic drinks eg: prohibition (and any other similar events in other countries). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Main

The article has several sections that are unsourced eg: Rectified spirit, Neutral grain spirit, Fermented beverages

Beverages by fermentation ingredients has an ongoing merge discussion. That may mean substantial changes result from it

A small edit war appears to have broken out (albeit on minor details) between David Hedlund (talk · contribs) and Sandcherry (talk · contribs) - diff diff diff diff

diff. Nothing serious but probably something that wants to be sorted out on the talk page.

I think those three above points are showstoppers, I'm afraid, so I think we'll have to fail the review at this point, and come back it to it when it's had a bit more restructuring. Sorry. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]