Talk:The Glenlivet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Glenlivet article.
Article policies
Good article The Glenlivet has been listed as one of the Everyday life good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
January 31, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

The Glenlivet is now owned by Pernod-Ricard, I believe? --82.36.126.44 23:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I live in NSW, Australia and I can buy 16 yo Nadurra over the counter in many decent bottle shops. It's said on here it's only available from travel outlets, but that's not the case here... 60.242.154.34 (talk) 07:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow this page is dead. There must be someone out there with info to add. If nobody does anything I am going to read a book on the subject. HighInBC 01:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't the first licensed distillery in Scotland. Seagram sold Chivas to Pernod-Ricard a few years ago. The other distillery was called Braes of Glenlivet but was renamed Braeval.

Does anyone know the proper way to drink scotch? (Asked 24 September 2006)

I possess two bottles of "Old Vatted Glenlivet (the N is inverted) Scotch Whiskey" dated 1862. Anyone have have idea as to its value? (TPL- 16 Dec. 2006)

No idea, however please take pictures of them and upload to this article if you will, it would be a wonderful addition. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of "Glenlivet" by other distilleries

I read on a visit to the whisky museum at Dufftown that the use of the word "Glenlivet" by the other Speyside distilleries was an attempt to genericize the trademark to mean "Speyside malt whisky", in the same way we use biro and hoover. The legal action that resulted in the real thing becoming "The Glenlivet" rather than stopping the use of the word "Glenlivet" in this way, if anything allowed this to continue - but there are plenty of Speyside malts that do not use the word, perhaps proving that the genericization was a flawed idea. Worthy of note in the article proper? EmleyMoor (talk) 12:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a paragraph detailing this using the references I had available at the time. The sources I've got make no mention of an attempted genericization, rather an attempt by other distillers to use the good name of The Glenlivet in order to sell their product. Nick (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

“ The quality of the product from their distillery had resulted in the other distilleries in the area renaming their products to 'Glenlivet' and by the time of George's death, several distillers were doing so, this prompted J.G. Smith to take legal action and, although only partially successful, it permitted only his distillery at Minmore to use the title The Glenlivet on its own, with other distilleries permitted to hyphenate their distillery name with 'Glenlivet', which resulted in names such as the The Glen Moray-Glenlivet Distillery, which is situated nearby. ”

[edit] GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)

Major issue is the lede, which I've detailed below. Other issues are mainly prose flow issues.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    Lede and prose flow need to be worked on, details below
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    I've got a few coverage issues mentioned below, but if the answers aren't available in sources, they aren't available.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Details:

  • The biggest thing I see is that the lede, instead of summarizing the information in the article as per WP:LEDE, serves as an introduction to the article and gives information that isn't found in the article. In fact, none of the information in the lede is in the main body of the article. I suggest moving parts of the information in the lede into a first section entitled something like "Location" or "Distillery" or "Facilities". The information on the products can go into the Production or Products section. Fixed, hopefully
  • History section, first paragraph, first sentence. Which area is referred to? Fixed
  • Does the Excise Act have an article? If so, it should be linked to. No article, it's something I'm intending to do in the future
  • Same section and paragraph, third sentence is it spirit or spirits? I have usually seen spirits, but hesitate to change it since I know little of the subject. Note Spirit is the correct term according to other distilleries
  • Same section and paragraph, why was it an unpopular decision to give Gow a license? Expanded
  • Same section, third paragraph, the last sentence is quite the run on sentence. It needs to be broken into smaller sentences. Fixed
  • Same section, fourth paragraph, the first sentence is awkward. Perhaps "During the Great Depression, the distillery remained open, although many other distilleries did not stay in production: ..." Fixed
  • Same section and paragraph, the second sentence is a bit run on, consider breaking the second phrase off as a stand alone sentence.Fixed
  • Same section, the last three paragraphs are all short, and could probably be merged together to make the prose flow better.Fixed
  • I believe it should be "Glenlivet Distillers Ltd was purchased... " as the subject is singular.Fixed
  • Production section, first paragraph. Every sentence starts with "The.." which gives the prose a choppy feel. Consider rewording some of the sentences to avoid the overuse of "the". Fixed
  • See also section. You don't need to list "Whisky" and "Scotch whisky" as they are linked in the article itself.Fixed'

The big issue here is the lede. It needs to summarize the article, and everything mentioned in it should also be in the article itself. All the other issues are prose flow issues and should be easy to fix.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on.Ealdgyth | Talk 17:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully everything should be a little more acceptable now. Nick (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The lede is still pretty short. I know you moved stuff out of the lede from before, but if you could use a few facts from the history up in the lede also, it'd help summarize the whole article. Alphege, which is an article I took to GA status, is about the length of this article, can you see how the lede takes something from each section? And something from each long paragraph in the sections, so that it's kind of a condensed article. The lede here probably only needs one or two sentences from the history section about the founding and maybe the fact that it stayed in operation through the Great Depression, but not WWII. Just rounds it out a bit. And I apologize, I somehow missed that you'd replied and were waiting on me. If I'd realized that, I'd have gotten to you sooner, and I'm sorry. Ealdgyth | Talk 05:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks good, passing now! Ealdgyth | Talk 00:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Hopefully I can rustle up a few more whisky GAs, now I've got an article and layout to work from. Nick (talk) 11:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)