Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rum/archive1
Self-nom. About a month ago there was discussion on this article's talk page about nominating this article for FA status. Since then the article has been on peer review and seen a significant expansion. At this time I am not aware of any outstanding issues remaining and wish to submit the article for Features Article consideration. --Allen3 talk July 3, 2005 00:38 (UTC)
- Support, with a minor objection: aren't song titles usually in quotes rather than italics? Daniel Case 3 July 2005 04:32 (UTC)
Object.Naval section has a sentence with the clause, "well until the practice was abolished", which doesn't seem to make sense. The use of well in such a context goes with the phrase "well after". This section should probably also mention the famous quote about "rum, sodomy, and the lash", although it's variously attributed (I've seen Churchill and Nelson; it may have circulated enough that the original source might not be traceable). Also, the lead mentions use in mixed drinks, but the article fails to mention any such drinks specifically. --Michael Snow 3 July 2005 05:26 (UTC)- The "rum in cuisine" section appears to mentions numerous rum cocktails: Rum and Coke, Cuba Libre, etc. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 July 3 16:06 (UTC)
- I will take your issues in order. The grammar in the sentence you pointed out has been corrected. The well-known quote "Don't talk to me about naval tradition. It's nothing but rum, sodomy, and the lash" was not included as it deals more with naval tradition than rum. As for the mixed drinks, would changing the term used in the lead to cocktail help any? --Allen3 talk July 3, 2005 17:20 (UTC)
- I'll withdraw the objection, I did get hung up on the cocktail/mixed drinks bit but that's more my fault than the article's. I would still mention the quote — the section on naval rum emphasizes the association between the two in the public's mind, and the quote is classic evidence of that association. But if others see it differently, it's not worth holding this up over. --Michael Snow 4 July 2005 00:54 (UTC)
- Yo ho ho and a Bottle of Rum. I'd like to see a wikiquote on rum too. Support =Nichalp «Talk»= July 3, 2005 06:21 (UTC)
- Support. Good coverage of many different aspects of the subject: history, varieties, culture. ike9898 July 3, 2005 14:31 (UTC)
- Support, comprehensive.
Phoenix2 Canada Day Weekend! 3 July 2005 19:06 (UTC) Object. I see that you have moved the list of rum brands to a new article, but the major brands should probably be mentioned in the article.Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 July 3 23:05 (UTC)- Could you provide a definition of "major brand" that does not have problems with either WP:NPOV or WP:V? As most rum producers do not publish numbers on the volume of their production, it is not possible to produce a verifiable list of the largest rum producers. Business press estimates of case volume also tend to be restricted to either the North American or European markets and ignore the rest of the world. Without case volume or some other measurable method of determining which brands qualify for consideration as a major brand any such list is inherently a POV exerise. There is also the question whether brands as Stroh or the larger cachaça should be considered for such a list. Due to the differing definitions of what speicifically qualifies as rum, this is another problem without a single good solution. It is due to issues such as these, plus the regional bias to favor brands available to each individual editor, that the list was moved to a seperate article were all brands may be listed. --Allen3 talk July 4, 2005 14:02 (UTC)
- You could say something along the lines of "Major rum producers include Bacardi, Captain Morgan, (any others you may add)." For various reasons, including its historic notability and sales volume, Bacardi is certainly among them. Captain Morgan, according to its article, is among the top fifteen selling spirit brands in the world, which would seem a good basis for inclusion. If there are other brands that can reasonably be included, include them. The definition being used, specifically, is the definition of major. There's no need to provide a list of the largest rum producers; all that's needed is a mention of the major names in the field. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 July 4 16:42 (UTC)
- I have added a line as suggested to the first paragraph. I tries to give the list variety in both style and geographical representation. I chose Stroh as the spiced rum to include a European entry, and because Captain Morgan is owned by the same parent company as Bundaberg and Myers. --Allen3 talk July 4, 2005 18:43 (UTC)
- Great. The article is extremely well written. Support. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 July 4 19:10 (UTC)
- I have added a line as suggested to the first paragraph. I tries to give the list variety in both style and geographical representation. I chose Stroh as the spiced rum to include a European entry, and because Captain Morgan is owned by the same parent company as Bundaberg and Myers. --Allen3 talk July 4, 2005 18:43 (UTC)
- You could say something along the lines of "Major rum producers include Bacardi, Captain Morgan, (any others you may add)." For various reasons, including its historic notability and sales volume, Bacardi is certainly among them. Captain Morgan, according to its article, is among the top fifteen selling spirit brands in the world, which would seem a good basis for inclusion. If there are other brands that can reasonably be included, include them. The definition being used, specifically, is the definition of major. There's no need to provide a list of the largest rum producers; all that's needed is a mention of the major names in the field. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 July 4 16:42 (UTC)
- Could you provide a definition of "major brand" that does not have problems with either WP:NPOV or WP:V? As most rum producers do not publish numbers on the volume of their production, it is not possible to produce a verifiable list of the largest rum producers. Business press estimates of case volume also tend to be restricted to either the North American or European markets and ignore the rest of the world. Without case volume or some other measurable method of determining which brands qualify for consideration as a major brand any such list is inherently a POV exerise. There is also the question whether brands as Stroh or the larger cachaça should be considered for such a list. Due to the differing definitions of what speicifically qualifies as rum, this is another problem without a single good solution. It is due to issues such as these, plus the regional bias to favor brands available to each individual editor, that the list was moved to a seperate article were all brands may be listed. --Allen3 talk July 4, 2005 14:02 (UTC)
- Support. Ambi 5 July 2005 15:17 (UTC)
- Support. Wonderful article. Fascinating read.--Alabamaboy 5 July 2005 20:45 (UTC)
- Object. I have several objections, mostly classified under "not comprehensive" and "POV". First, the issue discussed above re: rum production and sales needs to be resolved. Without any idea of how much rum is produced in the world or in key markets, and how much sales they are worth, the article cannot be considered comprehensive -- the article gives no quantitative indication of consumption. At least for the large producers, they are owned by public companies and good information should be available. It is not acceptable to relegate even major rum producers to a "see also" list. There should be more of an idea of how rum's popularity has waxed and waned, especially in the modern period. The involvement of rum in the slave trade is given less than one sentence's treatment, and should be expanded significantly. I would like to see example brand names and price points for the various categories of rum. I would also like to see more discussion of the components of rum from a food science / chemistry perspective. Under "POV", the categorization language needs to be cleaned up; right now it reads as if Spanish-speaking islands only produce cheap rum, which I know is not true. Other issues include some grammar errors and no pictures of production methods. - Bantman July 5, 2005 22:13 (UTC)
- Object Not much info really. It's good, but not great. Then again I guess you can't have so much info with rum, but nah, it's not FA material. LordMooCow 09:25, 4 July 2005 (GMT+10)
- Please be more specific - this objection at the moment is not actionable, and is thus invalid. Ambi 7 July 2005 02:05 (UTC)
- Object. I believe that Bantman's intelligent objections need to be addressed before this article can attain featured status. The article must be comprehensive and authoratative in order to be featured. --Zantastik talk 13:08, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
