Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Saint Vincent Beer/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 May 2022 [1].

Saint Vincent Beer

edit
Nominator(s): Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a pre-prohibition brewery run by monastery that generated quite a bit of controversy. I went through a GA review by Kusma and then a peer review by Ceoil and SandyGeorgia. After doing another read over, I think it is ready for you all. Thank you to my reviewers for getting it to this point. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review for the lead image, if all you did is cropped a public domain image and added some lines and text, these modifications are certainly below the threshold of originality in US law to enable a copyright claim; compare the examples at c:COM:TOO US (t · c) buidhe 22:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever c:COM:TOO US means, that you don't put into graspable, actionable, English, nor does the policy page. But public domain? Ceoil (talk) 22:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: I think it is just subject to copyright protection because it "possess[es] some creative spark". I made creative decisions by choosing what to label, what not to label, the wording of the labels, and the placement of the labels based on my decade of experience as a professional cartographer. I would agree with you if just labeled the ruins. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil

edit

I do like beer and monastery history so great to see this. Am re-reading, and while inclining towards promotion have things to say. Ceoil (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe the "Beer Fuss" and "golden age of Saint Vincent Beer" don't actually exist outside of the imaginations of the brewery's promotors
  • A lot of the sentences are staccato, eg "Wimmer agreed to close the tavern but sought to retain the brewery.[1] O'Connor refused to make the community that Wimmer founded a priory.[3] Wimmer appealed to Pope Pius IX during a trip to Rome, but was denied.[3] "
  • There are many instances of jarring alliteration, eg " pointing to the permission" etc
  • started pressuring the monastery to stop" - began to pressure
  • Watch capitalisation - Saint Vincent Archabbey, Seminary, and College
  • Zurcher skewered the archabbey for brewing Saint Vincent Beer instead of joining the temperance movement, - the placement of "skewered " here is baffling and hints at a calculation that is not explained. Also for brewing Saint Vincent Bthe beer
  • I think this is almost good to go, after you meet my demands. Ceoil (talk) 10:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ceoil:
    • Lamendola, Oetgen, and Klein all speak of the "beer fuss" as a thing. Klein is the most attached to the idea of a golden age. Lamendola refers to it as the "so called golden age." Oetgen makes no mention of it. I do get your point. The archabbey would be considered to be nanobrewery today due to how little beer was actually produced.
    • I fixed that section.
    • Alliterations are awesome! I went looking for weird wordings
    • Fixed
    • Fixed
    • There isn't a deeper meaning. Switched to the more common "criticized"
    -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

  • Lead The beer was initially produced at the archabbey in 1856 and had peaked to a demand of around 1,110 barrels by 1891. - say why early on why it became popular (luck, taste, well placed backers, etc)
  • Lead external sale by 1900 - to where and what proportion was this consuming total output
  • There is is lot more context in the articles's body than the lead of the article re the closure, maybe expand the lead, eg who is Aurelius Stehle
  • but Michael O'Connor, the Bishop of Pittsburgh, objected to monk ownership - on what legal and presumably moral grounds
  • I relocated The drink was a young dark, hoppy Bavarian-style beer.[5] Its grain was harvested ... as best as could, but is still a stray factoid as currently placed; can you better place in narrative
  • The actualities, reasons and wider drivers of the unlinked "Beer Fuss" are not made clear. Ceoil (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil
  • None of the modern sources nor the newspapers from the 1800s make a claim as to why it was popular
  • This is not mentioned in the sources
  • expanded
  • added that he was a temperance movement person
  • expanded
  • expanded
-- Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy with overall FAC feedback work and expansions. Support with non-deal breaking suggestions:
    • Is "Monks and Their Decline in 1898" a book or a pamphlet - the lead indicates that it was solely published to stop the beer, but it had a 88 pages, which indicates a diatribe
    • the monks continued to produce the drink for internal consumption - for their own consumption
    • where beer was brewed in abbeys - begs questions; was it from an earlier or contemporary recipe, how many abbeys, were they producing for "external" (maybe "selling" is better, as on 1st read of lead I thought international vs. domestic sale) production or just drinking it all themselves. Appreciate sources may be thin, if so ..."using a recipe used by a number of abbeys". Ceoil (talk) 21:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PMC

edit

Claiming myself a spot, comments sometime this week. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Technically I'm still within my week. Here we go.

Lead
  • It feels unnecessary to call it an alcoholic drink, then call out the style of beer in sentence two. To me beer is a common enough concept that you don't have to explain it in an article about a type of beer. Unfortunately there aren't any comparable FAs to compare to, so it's possible I'm nuts and the granularity is necessary.
  • The beer was initially produced at the archabbey in 1856 feels redundant. The first sentence in para 1 already mentions the start date, and this restates that in more words without adding any additional information.
  • Francesco Satolli, the Apostolic Delegate to the United States. He wrote to Archabbot Leander Schnerr asking for the brewing to be stopped. Something wonky has happened here. Also, when?
  • When did Zurcher write his book?
  • What's The New York Voice, and when did it decide it hated monks and beer? What was it accusing the abbey of anyway?
  • the monks continued to produce the drink for domestic consumption - Assuming you mean the monks kept making the beer to drink for themselves, the phrasing "domestic consumption" doesn't really work, as it most often refers to the consumption of goods in the country they were produced in.
Background
  • I feel like the background section gets ahead of itself by describing Wimmer as the founder of the first Benedictine monastery in the United States but not mentioning that the St Vincent was that monastery. It oddly implies that there was another one first.
  • The dates in the background section don't match the lead. The lead says brewing started in 1856 and that Pius IX allowed for commercial sale in 1858. The background section says that they were brewing by 1849 and got permission for production and sale in 1852.
  • Not sure the second paragraph belongs in the Background section, as it's a description of the beer and some critical response to it. Actually, I wonder if background/early years aren't better off merged into one section.
Early years
Beer Fuss and Decline

If you disagree with any suggestions, no problem, I'm open to discussion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All fixes look good, I am happy to support this nomination on prose. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Vami

edit

Verdict: Pass. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 20:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-checks:

  • Citation [20] would more accurately draw from pages 129 and 130.
  • Citation [3] checks out but is needlessly repeated at This upset O'Connor who refused to grant the community that Wimmer founded status as a priory.[3] Wimmer appealed O'Connor's refusal to Pope Pius IX during a trip to Rome, but was denied.[3]
  • Citation [13] checks out.

X –♠Vami_IV†♠ 20:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed! -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Supports by Lee Vilenski

edit

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
Prose
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

edit
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Saint_Vincent_Beer/archive1&oldid=1090795814"