[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Glengoyne distillery

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeGlengoyne distillery was a Sports and recreation good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 26, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
December 29, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
February 4, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
July 19, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
August 26, 2009Good article reassessmentNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Still Game?

[edit]

Is it worth mentioning that the distillery was used in the this show, when Jack and Victor disgraced themselves on a distillery tour? Glengoyne's official site seems to think it's notable - see [1] ;) Camillus (talk) 12:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added an image

[edit]

Added a photo of the distillery --Hari 18:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

article

[edit]

I acme through looking to see if i would GA review it. I am still not sure but can I ask, why American English and not British. Maybe as simple as the first editor but I would like to know. Thanks, I will let you know if I can give the time to a GA. Edmund Patrick – confer 20:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Converted all the American English terms I could find to British English but I couldn't find that many (liter --> litre, distill --> distil). Maybe I'm missing something..
Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign!) 02:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Glengoyne Distillery/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Starting GAreview.Pyrotec (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initial review

[edit]

This article has been tidied up somewhat since the last WP:GAN review and much of the WP:SPAM has been removed. The article still needs some work done on it, but it should make GA this time round.Pyrotec (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed comments

[edit]

I will start the detailed review, going through section by section, but leaving the WP:lead until last. At this stage I'm just concentrating on "problems", so if an item is not mentioned here, it is probably OK; however, at the end I will be summarising the overall findings.

  • Production and character -
  • Its not clear why first sentence of the second paragraph needs four in-line citations. Ref 9 provides an adequate WP:Verification; as does reference 10. Ref 11 appears to fall under the category of WP:Spam, its little more than Copy in the form "clever" marketing, to provide a list of the various distillery tours and their costs; and ref 12 is currently broken. I see little justification for ref 11 (and 12?).
  • Ref 13 at the end of the second paragraph, is in effect a 'Press Release' all about the August 2004 floods. What it claims to verify only appears at the end, in the Notes to Editors. This information is not exactly current, more like four to five years old.
  • The final sentence of the final paragraph has three in-line citations. Whilst Reference 6 appears to be acceptable, references 17 and 18 are both WP:spam, i.e. lists of bottles of whiskies and their costs. They are unencyclopedic and should go.
  • Products' -
  • Reference 21 needs clarifying.
  • Reference 22 is broken, but it also appears to be a blog. Blogs are not acceptable as a means of WP:verify.
  • This is inadequate. It just about provides an introduction for the article, which is only part of what the WP:lead should do. It provides only a cursory summary of some of the main points of the article, and needs some expansion.
  • I'm not certain that the claim that "Glengoyne is unique in producing Highland single malt whisky matured in the Lowlands" appears in the article. If it is to remain in the Lead, as it is, it needs an in-line citation to comply with WP:verify.
  • Other comments -
  • The article appears to make much of the Highland / Lowland divide; and there are links (and a bit, not much, of explanation) of Highland single malt whisky; but there is nothing about Lowland whisky other than what appears in Production and character. Overall, by the end of the article the reader will not find out what the difference is.
 Done - added wikilink.Pyrotec (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its not clear in the article whether bottling is carried out on site. Warehouses are mentioned in several places and warehouse storage of filled bottles also appears, but no mention of bottling!
  • Bonded storage is not mentioned, perhaps the warehouses are bonded stores, perhaps they are not.
  • Having read the article several times and all the references, it appears that Glengoyne produced single malt: some of which was bottled under its own name and some was sold under the Lang's name as blended whisky. However, this is not mentioned in the article, the article seems to discuss only single malt consumption.
  • Current production / sales. Most of the information given is of 2002/3 and/or 2004/5 vintage. I would have expected a few minor revisions giving more up to date figures.

Pyrotec (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions:

[edit]

Just a few queries, I'd appreciate clarification on these issues.

Answers/comments provided in line.Pyrotec (talk) 18:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not certain that the claim that "Glengoyne is unique in producing Highland single malt whisky matured in the Lowlands" appears in the article. If it is to remain in the Lead, as it is, it needs an in-line citation to comply with WP:verify.
"Although distilled in the Highlands, making Glengoyne a Highland single malt, the whisky is matured in the Lowlands. This is because the distillery itself sits upon the Highland Line, the division between the Highlands and Lowlands of Scotland which splits the distillery in two.[10] The boundary line runs underneath the A81 road from Glasgow to Aberfoyle and passes in front of the distillery with the warehouses located to the southwest of the road.[6]"
Finding an inline citation for this is remarkably difficult. Many sources state the case but none mention specifically that no others do. However, it is simply the case that no other Highland Malt distilleries in Scotland are located anywhere near the highland line and thus do not have lowland matured malts. I can't find the words to express this but it is verified by lack of anything else... if you follow. The only way I can think to truely proove this would be to cite the location of every other highland distillery, but this is just not practical.
Why not paraphrase the words of reference 10 and cite ref 10?Pyrotec (talk) 18:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why? The current phrasing is clear and explains the situation. Paraphrasing ref 10 would, in my opinion, make it less readable. The individual facts are cited appropriately I feel. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 20:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article appears to make much of the Highland / Lowland divide; and there are links (and a bit, not much, of explanation) of Highland single malt whisky; but there is nothing about Lowland whisky other than what appears in Production and character. Overall, by the end of the article the reader will not find out what the difference is.
The only real difference between a highland malt and a lowland malt is that a highland malt is distilled north of the highland line and lowlands below. That's it. Any other difference is distillery unique and nothing to do with highland/lowland. This is addressed here: "Although distilled in the Highlands, making Glengoyne a Highland single malt" which makes it clear that because it was distilled in the highlands that it is a highland malt. No other factors need be taken into account.
(1) Are you saying that it is all marketing hyperbole, only a line on a map? (2) The article also states: "As a result of the use of unpeated malt Glengoyne has been noted as being stylistically closer to a Lowland as opposed to a Highland single malt"; which suggest that it is not all hyperbole (highland='peated malt'?, lowland='unpeated malt')? If so, I'm not sure both can be true at the same time!Pyrotec (talk) 18:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Fact is not marketing. The "line on a map" is what separates the two regions. I'd hardly call this marketing hyperbole (2) Due to geographical differences many lowland malts do not use peat simply because at the times they where founded it was impractical to ship peat from such distances. This, however, is not the rule hence the phrase "stylistically closer" as an unpeated highland malt is about as unusual as a lowland peated malt. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 20:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bonded storage is not mentioned, perhaps the warehouses are bonded stores, perhaps they are not.
I don't see how this is relavent to the article other than advertising they store other companies products? I'm sure if another distillery wants to store barrels they wont use wikipedia to find potential locations.
I could name another distillery around Glasgow that uses (or used) geese to protect its bonded stores. I also assume from your answer that either you have misunderstood the question or you don't know what a bonded warehouse is? Its whisky for which no tax has paid. If they are being used to store maturing whisky they are likely to be bonded stores. Having re-read your first question, they also appear to be on the opposite side of the road from the distillery.Pyrotec (talk) 18:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure how to source this, I'd imagine it would be from inside the business. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 20:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having read the article several times and all the references, it appears that Glengoyne produced single malt: some of which was bottled under its own name and some was sold under the Lang's name as blended whisky. However, this is not mentioned in the article, the article seems to discuss only single malt consumption.
This is true and I will add it asap.


Cheers Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 17:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been nearly two months. What's the progress on this? Wizardman 14:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It this a rhetorical question?Pyrotec (talk) 18:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closing WP:GANPyrotec (talk) 12:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unpeated

[edit]

Unlike many malt whiskys Glengoyne does not use peat smoke to dry their barley but instead favours the use of warm air. Is this really very rare? I thought distilleries were about 50/50 on peat usage. Few Speysides and no Lowlands use peat. In the last few years it seems more distilleries are offering peated whiskies, but that's still a limited release. Arran, for example, just released a peated whisky, a few months ago, and that was their first, as far as I know. Unless you can say that most other distilleries use a tiny bit of peat. Oban, for example, has just a hint of it in their whiskies. But as far as most people know, there are peaty whiskies, and not-peaty whiskies, so the claim that Glengoyne is one of the few unpeated whiskies doesn't sound right. -Freekee (talk) 03:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it needs rewording to "unlike many highland malt...". As far as I'm aware highland malts traditionally use peat, much more so than lowland/speyside. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 08:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think a general term like "many" would be acceptable. Most Speysides got away from peat when the technology "improved." Some Highlands did too. But there's also the matter of how much peat. It may be hard to find a Highland whisky without any, but there are many where it's just a touch. And I think there are a lot of Speysides that have that little bit of peat. -Freekee (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Glengoyne distillery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Glengoyne distillery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glengoyne_distillery&oldid=1207440271"