Talk:Hensley & Co.

Ambiguous

"At the time of Jim Hensley's death in 2000, he held most of the controlling stock"

'Did you mean to write 'At the time of his death in 2000, Jim Hensley held most of the controlling stock', or does the "he" reference another person? [16:36, May 22, 2008 216.229.89.63]

Resolved. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Organization

I don't want to formally open the GAN on this article at this point, but I think the second "history" section looks somewhat amorphous. Have you considered, perhaps, separating the company's political and community activities into dedicated sections? It might give the article as a whole a better sense of structure. Gatoclass (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a possibility, but for any company in the heavily regulated and taxed alcohol industry, political activities are part and parcel of what they do. And political aspects became even more a part of the story of Hensley once the daughter and future chair married someone who became a prominent U.S. politician. Charitable and community activities are also prominent in the alcohol industry, as they attempt to combat negative publicity from some corners of the public. So on balance, I think an integrated chronological approach is better here. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of splitting the second section into smaller subsections. Having read it again, I can't escape the feeling of being jerked around uncomfortably from one topic to another. The end result is to discourage me from reading it at all. I don't see that chronology is a major issue for this section - certainly, I didn't get a sense of chronological sequence from the original arrangement. IMO it's more useful to the reader in this instance to have the info logically rather than chronologically arranged. I'm not going to revert back if you decide that you prefer the original arrangement, but I do hope you will at least consider the alternative arrangement before doing so. Gatoclass (talk) 08:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, we'll go this way. I see your point and the article is short enough that readers can 'get' the chronology even with a logical organization. But it makes sense to pull out the political activities from the pre-2000 history as well. This allows the article to just have one-level sectioning, which is for the better here. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

That looks fine to me now, although perhaps the "Business history" section could still be divided up into pre- and post-2000, but that's a minor quibble.

If nobody else reviews this article over the next week or so, I will come back and open the GA review. Normally I would have done it right away, but I'm snowed under with other wikiwork at the moment that really can't wait any longer. Hopefully in a few days I will have some more free time. Gatoclass (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hensley & Co./GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gatoclass (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I changed my mind, I think I will review this - it shouldn't take too long. Gatoclass (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   A few issues here:

   "Hensley accepted an offer later that year". Later what year?

   "While it initially handled many brands of beer, Hensley accepted an offer later that year[1] to become Anheuser-Busch's exclusive distributor for Maricopa County". Does this mean Hensley only sold Anheuser-Busch brands, or that Hensley was the only distributor to sell A-B's product in Mariposa?

   "from 2001 to 2006, the company and its employees would contribute an additional $24,000 to such campaigns". Does "such campaigns" mean McCain's campaigns, or political campaigns in general? (If the former, I would suggest simply dropping the "to such campaigns" phrase).

   "with company executives contributing heavily to it[17] and company spokesperson Douglas Yonko the association's Arizona director". Sentence makes no sense to me, can you clarify it somehow please?

   "not to impose alcohol content display requirement for beer labels". I think I know what this means, but the sentence doesn't make much sense and seems to be ungrammatical. Why not just something like "not to require alcohol content displays for beer labels"?

   All issues now resolved. Gatoclass (talk) 02:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

1. B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Seems to have a nice balance between the company's self-interested actions and its community initiatives.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Has a logo. Gatoclass (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   I guess it could have an image of Cindy McCain, or perhaps a crate of beer or something.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   A well written and informative article which strikes a nice balance between the company's history and its political and community activities. Gatoclass (talk) 02:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Units

• It refers to "case" of beer in three places. It would be helpful to the reader to provide volume units.

Lightmouse (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for the review. I've made changes to address all these points, including the one Lightmouse added. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hensley & Co.. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.abwholesaler.com/hensley/AboutUs/AboutUs
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110812011636/http://www.sandiegomagazine.com/media/San-Diego-Magazine/August-2007/Cindy-McCain/ to http://sandiegomagazine.com/media/San-Diego-Magazine/August-2007/Cindy-McCain/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://phoenixchamber.com/About/BoardDirectors/index.html

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) 06:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)