Wikipedia:Peer review/Guinness/archive1

Guinness[edit]

This is a great article on that most Irish of drinks. Any ideas for improvement? Seabhcán 09:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's some good stuff, there, but it could do with some possible additions:
- How to pour could do with a diagram
- Difference between Irish & British Guinness (if there is any - I know this is a topic of dispute)
- More on the bottled versions, and why they have a market in West Africa & the Caribbean
- Television advertising & slogans - "Good Things Come To Those Who Wait", "Not Everything in Black & White makes Sense"; several Guinness ads have won awards. A small example image of Guinness advertising (if it can be covered by fair use) would also be nice.

Also:
- Inline external links should be proper references.
- Serving temperature should mention the Extra Cold variety & when it was introduced.
- Varieties list could do with being organised by type (draught, bottled, export) rather than a single list. In fact, it might be better as a table.
- Mentions the use of sorghum in Nigeria twice, separately.
- I'm not sure if all the information about the harp is relevant specifically to this article. Qwghlm 10:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like your idea about the "How to pour" diagram. Adding the ads to wikipedia might be legally sticky, but I'm not sure. Thanks Seabhcán 10:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear if the items listed in further reading were actually consulted to write this article- references should be clearly identifiable for the reader. Html links should be converted to inlines, or at least cited in full so they cane be identified if a reference website goes down. I assume since this article is both about the company and the product that there should be some more detail on corporate stuff, profits, number of employees, etc; where brewing is done around the world. How licening the name Guiness works seems to be an important omission since in most countries Guiness is produced under licence by local breweries, how much does it cost a brewery to get a licence to make it, how is quailty controlled and so on. An old advertising poster if discussed in the context of the article could be pictured in the article under fair use. The lead could use some expansion to summarise the content of the article.--nixie 01:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe just me but I was just thinking that it would make more sense if this article referred to the company entity Guinness Breweries and most of this information was moved to Guinness Beer, or something like that. This article contains mostly information about the beer (and the culture? around it) and a little bit of information about the company itself and it's workings, but I think that they should be treated separately. There is definitely not enough about the company itself (a standard company profile style page would be appropriate) and it's history, not to mention Arthur Guinness himself. freshgavin TALK 02:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the word "Guinness" unqualified usually refers to the drink, rather than the brewery, and the phrase "Guinness Beer" is awkward and rarely used, I would recommend having the article Guinness be about the drink, and hive off the details of the brewery to Arthur Guinness Son & Co. instead. Qwghlm 13:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that Arthur Guinness Son & Co. is much more clunky than Guinness Beer or Guinness Breweries, but anyways, either a disambiguation page, or links at the top of the Guinness page and a couple of redirects here and there would suffice. freshgavin TALK 23:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good enough treatment, but it does have some holes:
- Inline citations. You have some, but the following points should probably be footnoted so the reader knows where the information came from:
  - The fact that some drinkers consider Guinness a "meal in a glass" or "liquid bread" (without a citation, this reads like original research).
  - The fact that the temperature at which Guinness should be served is disputed (again, original research without a citation).
  - The direct quote from the advertising campaign needs to include an inline citation to one of those adverts. (i.e., "It takes 119.5 seconds to pour the perfect pint.")
  - ". . . many American bars seem to ignore the requisite 'slow pour'." Source, so doesn't come off as original research.
  - "Another myth is that Guinness is brewed using water from the River Liffey . . . . " Source, so doesn't come off as original research.
  - "Guinness fans can visit the Guinness Storehouse in Dublin, which has been described as Disneyland for beer . . . ." Where has it been described as such? Source it. (Also, watch the antecedent. Is Dublin a Disneyland for beers, or is the Guinness Storehouse?)
- I agree that the article needs to discuss the corporation that is Guinness more. Profits, corporate history, advertising campaigns and how they differ in various parts of the world. West Africa is a huge market for Guinness, and the current article barely covers this. Cameroon in particular (according to unsubstantiated rumors I heard while there) is the third largest Guinness consumer per capita after Ireland and the U.S. They use Michael Power in their advertising, with slogans like "Guinness brings out the Power in you!"
- Likewise, serving Guinness is different in Africa. Lack of refrigeration means that Guinness is often served room temperature. It's pretty much only available bottled, as well. (This is all original research by yours truly, but you should try to dig up sources on Guinness in different markets.)
- The discussion of the River Liffey myth is out of place. It comes under the header "pouring and serving", but it has nothing to do with either of those.
- I'm pretty sure Malta is available in other markets than just West Africa. One of my old roommates was Puerto Rican, and his family loved the stuff and drank it in Louisiana. —BrianSmithson 16:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just wrote Michael Power (Guinness character). The sources there would be good for the main Guinness article, as well. —BrianSmithson 19:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]