Talk:Beer

• /Tags: FA & GA type tags.
• /Archive1: up to end of Dec 2005.

Varieties of beer

I think this section can safely be removed entirely, since it appears to be equivalent with its master article, Beer style. Does anyone oppose the removal of this section, leaving a BRIEF description and a link to Beer style?Shaggorama 11:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Fat

What about the consumption of beer making one obese? Is this true, or a fairy tale? Maybe someone should write a small paragraph about it. --Michiel Sikma 23:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

See the article on beer belly, though it appears to be disputed. I agree that more should be written on this important topic. Nikola 07:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

How to taste beer

Where is the taste? I am surprised to note that in the whole beer project there isn't a single mention of the art of beer tasting, or any guide on how to taste beer, leave alone how to organise a beer tasting. I am not refering to an experts guide but information that anyone can use.

I feel that information on how to taste beer is worth its very own wiki document. I am passionate about this topic as I am associated with a site that focuses on it, namely http://www.tastebeer.com.au. Example articles: How to taste beer and Discover the truth about beer taste.

I am not asking to use tastebeer.com.au as a reference but I feel that a beer tasting document (or at least a section) should exist that provides visitors with information about beer tasting. I am looking for your input - I've never started a wiki document myself but if there're no takers on this subject I'll shall give it a try myself. Wyxel 07:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Wyxel, the best way to go about getting other people interested is to start working on the article yourself. It may seem like it's not the "ideal" route, but that generally is the most likely way of getting your desired article moving or attracting other contributors to it. As they say around here, Be bold. BTW, it's an interesting idea, and I'd be interested in seeing where you head with such an article. --Daniel11 07:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Daniel that a page on beer tasting would be interesting. It would link with Rating beer and with the BJCP. SilkTork 23:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Beer around the world

This list is serves little purpose - the top link Beer and nationality goes to a similar list. If people wanted to gain specific details on beer within a country they could follow that link. And at least 12 of the countries listed are blind links. I suggest this section is cut. SilkTork 23:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

History

The article is getting much too long and there are way too many sections. I have moved the history section to a separate article. A short text should be entered here (under History) and 2 pictures have been removed that could be put back. Piet 15:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Rate beer - too many sections

I've moved Rating Beer to this page. There are still too many sections. Piet 15:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Sectioning

Made a section "Beer culture". I hope I did't break too much while restructuring. I will stop for now. There are still too many sections. Can "Etymology" and "Mythology" go to History of beer? "Ingredients" belong under "Brewing". Does History of beer need to be renamed? I think Beer brewing could be a separate article, so that section could be cleaned up. Then this article could have a clean structure, with a main article for each of these sections:

1. History
2. Brewing
3. Serving
4. Varieties
5. Beer culture

Hmm, "Related beverages" can go to "Varieties" I think. "Health effects" does not really fit under "Beer culture". Please give some feedback as I have been a bit bold. Piet 16:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm following some of your suggestions to see how it looks. There is still some work needed, but certainly putting Ingredients in with Brewing makes sense. But that section now needs trimming as there is a fuller brewing article. I agree that Mythology and Etymology looked and felt inappropriate and are better served in the history section. SilkTork

Peer review

I have requested a peer review - see top. Piet 13:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Alcohol content

Forgive me if I missed it, but does this article discuss alcohol content anywhere. I've heard that 18% is the highest that can be achieved without distillation. Any thoughts?--Hraefen 05:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Reference to high alcohol yeast

White labe claims to ave a yeast capable of 25% ABV. Here is the link. http://www.whitelabs.com/beer/homebrew_super.html

What would it take for the World to run out of beer?

As well as any alcoholic drink for that matter?

(--snip diatribe about family breakups, drunk driving accidents, et al.--)

Besides, when more and more better things to do get invented (i.e. Holodecks and especially Syntheholic beverages), why should we still need actual beer and beveragic alcohol? --Shultz III 02:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Pouring a beer

Is this section needed? SamSmithBeer

Intro/FA cleanup

Could we shorten the intro and move some of the information provided there into the rest of the article so that beer better conforms to FA status? Leppy 17:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I was just thinking the exact same thing. --Daniel11 18:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

some traditional midlands ales

banks's highgate ale abbots ale

Beer is evil.

What kind of rational thinking person would allow themselves by drinking this slop? Beer kills brain cells, damages the liver, and causes addiction almost instantly. People who drink make me sick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.231.218 (talk • contribs)

And people who assume that a Wikipedia talk page is a personal soapbox without signing their comments make me sick. --Kiand 20:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that booze is disgusting, morally bankrupt, mentally and physically damaging and a massive waste to the individual and society. Regardless, Wiki is not a soapbox. Perhaps you can contribute to the teetotalism article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.67.145.164 (talk • contribs)

Interesting. While beer can be abused just as any alcohol can, perhaps you've missed some of the research in recent years showing that beer (in moderation) can help improve heart health, reduce the risk of kidney stones, reduce hay fever symptoms, reduce menopausal symptoms, reduce the risk of prostate cancer, and improves cognitive function. Not to mention it's chock full of B vitamins and, until the advent of sanitation, was much safer to drink than the local water. Plus a study out this week shows that social drinkers earn, on average, about 20% more than their teetotaling counterparts. I am certainly not advocating that beer is a "health drink", but for most people who enjoy it in moderation it is a tasty and enjoyable beverage. You're certainly welcome to not have any. That just means more for me and my friends. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 19:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yet the wine is fine? If you are drinking a bottle with dinner your just as much a alcoholic as somebody that has a sixer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.199.252.107 (talk • contribs)

In Internet terminology, a troll is often someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude, repetitive or offensive messages designed intentionally to annoy or antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion, including the personal attack of calling others trolls. Often, trolls assume multiple aliases, or sock puppets. --From Wikipedia's Internet troll article.

All the best,
Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak}
21:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

What's up with the introduction? It seems all wrong to me... 65.101.172.161 22:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems to have been vandalised; I've restored it again to an older copy. dewet|✉ 22:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Beer is man's gift to society. Beer is cold, refreshing, and oh so good; especially after a long or hard day. One of the most important attributes about beer is that it brings people together.

Hogarth's Beer Lane

Might I suggest that Hogarth's eigtheenth-century engraving Beer Lane [1] should be included in the article if someone can show that it fits the copyright requirements etc. I think it is a very iconic image and one which immediately came to mind. Furthermore there is the precedent of the article on Gin which makes use of Hogarth's Gin Alley. SCRA5071 12:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean Beer Street. We've already got the image, so go ahead and include it. --FOo 20:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

gluten free beer

someone has seen themselves important enough to remove this section. presumably they do not have a disease that one in a hundred of us have which means we cannot drink beer that is not gluten free. Thanks for that. How socially isolating do you think it is to be unable to eat out, unable to go on holiday, unable to go for a beer. Shall we just crawl into a hole and die? Or would you like to replace an important part of the article you have removed?

The above comment was left by User:Wikwobble. The removed section is a copy of a slightly earlier version of this article: Gluten free beer. In addition to that section I also removed links to Wikwobble's website - a link to which can be found on the Gluten free beer article. The Gluten free beer article is an assett to the site and people with an interest in the subject are requested to assist in its development. SilkTork 18:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I DO NOT KNOW HOW MANY TIMES I HAVE TO TELL THIS GUY ! NOT MY WEBSITE ! Has it registered yet ? IT IS NOT MY WEBSITE. Please stop making that claim  ! User:wikwobble

I replaced the item, being very important to some of us, and it has since been edited. Whilst I may agree or disagree with the choice of editing, that's tough luck for me. What I appreciate is not having valid content wiped off, but being worked upon and (hopefully) improved. And it is not for me to say whether it is or is not better. I think it is important to note the difference between editing, and narrow-minded casting aside of an important subject which is pertinent to to the main section on beer (then linked to another section, in the same way as lager is). I also indicate to anyone reading, what is endanger of becoming a petty squabble, that there are a number of external sources listed, none of which I removed, and a link to an external non-commercial resource is very different to the existing link to Boddingtons, specifically, whether or not I would personally like to drink a pint of it. Unfortunatly, for many millions of us, that is not an option. Yet note, that link remains undeleted by myself.

SilkTork has not replied to any of my recent comments but has since replaced the section on gf beer with a blatant mistruth (that the gluten intolerent "can't drink beer"). Can I request that those who rework this section remain positive? Even if not positive, honest? User:wikwobble by the way, I have corrected the eror.

I have changed the page such that there is mention of gluten free beer as a type of beer. Which it is. I have added to SEE ALSO gluten free beer which makes sense on a page about beer. And under external links I have put glutenfreebeerfestival as a site which reviews beers - which it does. Please note that This is not my site, no matter what another user keeps ranting. If anyone (specifically those who seem to think they own this page) wants to change these modest edits, perhaps they can explain why any of these three items are not appropriate? It is a type of beer, it is a relevant "see also", it is a site that reviews beers. Deletion without comment would be very rude, wouldn't it ? That's why I have not done it ! User:wikwobble

I think I can help to clear up some of this dispute. In a way you're both right. Beer is made with barley. And as far as my understanding goes, someone who can't have gluten, can't have barley. On the other hand, many "beers" are made today without barley. A fine example here in Wisconsin, is New Grist, made by Lakefront Brewery in Milwaukee. They market this beer especially for celiacs, and I've tried it. It's not bad. But in the literal definiton of Beer, it does'nt qualify. I don refer to it as beer, however, and I have no problem moving forward from past classifications, and calling that here, maybe with a side note. What does everyone else think? Seanmcpherson1 02:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Uhh...isn't the "technical" definition of beer a fermented beverage made from grain? The Rheinheitsgebot says it has to be barley, but that's only one definition. Beer can be made wheat and rye too, you know. Some notes about gluten and beer seem appropriate to me, especially as gluten free beer is becoming more prevalent. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 13:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Reorganising

Dear all, I have today done a little bit of reorganising. I just felt that the article, while full of good information, was a bit of a hotch-potch. Looking at my edits, I'm still not happy but not sure where to go. Can other wikipedians help with the Styles of Beer section, and also with how to further tidy up the rest of the article. Cheers Duncshine 16:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The reorganisation was very good. A certain shape has now appeared, and the article is taking form. There's still plenty of work to be done, but at least at this point it's becoming clear what sections we need in the article, and what material needs to be included, and which belongs elsewhere. We may even be ready to create a To Do list! SilkTork 19:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Beer Belly

This page said that beer bellies are considered to be due to over eating rather than the consumption of beer. It was my understanding that most scientists beleive Beer Bellies are due to alcohol's action in cellular metabolism. I understood that it inhibited the immediate use of fats in metabolism, and caused them to be stored instead. I also understood that heavy drinking of any alcoholic beverage on a regular basis could cause a beer belly. Please correct me if i am wrong.

AFAIK, you're not wrong. Beer is straight sugar and carbs. Do the math. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.236.216.252 (talk • contribs)

Perhaps you should check your sources, ingredients before brewing are primarily sugar - which is converted into alcohol and CO2. I don't know the nutritional ramifications of this, but your comment is unjustified. Sugar is a carbohydrate by nature so saying that beer is "straight sugar and carbs" is redundant. Just my 2cents. Celardore 21:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Most beer is about 200KCal per pint. So if you consume more KCal than you use you will gain weight. Simple maths and biology; if you put more in a tank than you take it it fills up. However, it is generallly thought that excess food consumption is likely to be the primary cause of a pot belly than having a few pints the occational night - and perhaps most importantly the 1000KCal kabab or pizza you have on your way home from the pub. 199.4.27.1 12:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

recent edits

There is a section on gluten free beer, above. Perhaps the last editor did not read it? Please do so now. If you cannot rationalise the edits (ie, answer the three points above), why should I not reverse them? Before I do, you now have the opportunity to deal with the issues. Why for example, would you want one beer review site but not another? What makes one valid and one invalid? Are you connected in any way with one of them? Do you lack perspective? You will note that my above comments accompanied my additions to the page. It seems only polite to include comments here when you brush them aside. Or is that only me? User:wikwobble

Right, lets take this one step at a time. Please respond to this attempt to communicate. I shall insert the link to glutenfreebeerfestival.com as a special interest site. It keeps getting deleted. It IS a special interest for beer, is it not? If not, it does review beers, so it can go in "beer review sites", can't it? Before you delete it, please consider which place it should go - one or the other, eh? Or give me some rationale for leaving the other links in? User:wikwobble

The current beer review sites listed are large, well established sites which have a wide variety of beers, including gluten free beers. They are notable sites, that is they are referenced by the world's media. They have significant web traffic as detailed by Alexa.com. There are many, many other beer review sites which we do not include as Wiki is not a web directory. There is a link to the special interest glutenfreebeerfestival.com website on the gluten free beer article. That is the appropriate place for it. Someone reading the general beer article would be looking for general beer links. Someone reading the gluten free beer article would be looking for a gluten free beer link. Gluten free beer is an important subject, and the article is developing very well. But it is not enough a part of the general beer scene to have a link on this page. We have to have limits as to what links are allowed on this page otherwise we would be overrun. The most appropriate place for the weblink is on the gluten free beer article - and a link is already there. SilkTork 13:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

garbled sentence

Can someone who knows what this is trying to say please clear it up?

As almost any substance containing carbohydrates, namely sugar or starch, it can naturally undergo fermentation, it is likely that beer-like beverages were independently invented among various cultures throughout the world.

Kisch 02:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone added an "it" which threw the sentence. I've removed it. SilkTork 13:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, should have seen that. It just read very oddly. Thanks. Kisch 01:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Charlie Marx

The Clany Brothers did a song called Beer, Beer, Beer and it claims that a guy named Charlie Marx invented beer. Of course, this is not true but I want to know more about this Charlie Marx guy.

Please see Charlie Mopps. Another version of the lyrics is at [2] —Wrathchild ^(talk) 19:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Beer Bread?

Please see Beer bread. This article is currently in need of more internal links. What are your thoughts for adding this into the main entry in an appropriate section?--Saintlink 23:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• It's a bread recipe. I have added it to the breads cat. SilkTork 13:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Notability criteria discusion document

A discussion document has been opened up. Wikipedia:WikiProject Beer/Notability Criteria. Please put in your views either on the main page or on the attached talk page. If we want to list every brewery on the planet then I feel we should get some valid criteria behind us. SilkTork 16:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Skunked Beer

Shouldn't "skunked" beer be in the article? Here's a good reference: "Chemists Determine Cause of "Skunky" Beer," Scientific American, 22 October 2001:

These days, beer is the beverage of choice at chemist Malcolm Forbes’s laboratory meetings at the University of North Carolina. That’s because their latest project aims to determine why beer exposed to light tastes bad. The results of their research, an explanation for this so-called light-struck flavor, will appear in the November 5th issue of Chemistry—A European Journal.

The phenomenon of beer turning skunky after exposure to light has been reported in the literature for more than 100 years, Forbes notes, but only now have scientists pinpointed the underlying mechanism. Using a type of spectroscopy that exploits electron spin, the researchers compiled a computer simulation of the reaction by which light-sensitive molecules in hops degrade into unpleasant-smelling products. The mechanism is intriguing, Forbes says, because one part of the molecule absorbs light energy that then migrates through the molecule and causes a free radical to form at a different location. "The final product of the reaction turns out to be what we call 'skunky thiol,' an analogue of a compound found in skunk glands that produces a very bad taste and smell," Forbes says. The flavor threshold of the thiol is so low, the authors write, that concentrations of a few parts-per-trillion can make beer unpalatable.

Breweries typically avoid the degradation of their product by packaging it in brown or green bottles to protect it from light. "Understanding mechanisms behind changes in beer tastes is important because the world beer industry is hoping to save money by storing, shipping and selling beer in less-expensive clear glass," Forbes explains. Currently beer manufacturers that package their product in clear bottles can use modified hops that produce different free radicals and result in less of the foul chemicals. But one company minimizes the impact of the skunky thiols through more ingenious means. "Corona is marketed extremely cleverly," Forbes says of that beer, which uses regular hops but has been sold in clear bottles all along. The company suggests that drinkers add a slice of lime to enhance the taste of the beer, not to mention its odor.

So maybe someone should add this. --SafeLibraries 02:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Tags

I've put the GA & FA type tags into a folder reached at the top of the talk page. However, I'm not sure if this is correct procedure. Some of the links didn't work, so I had to manually insert the old content. I'm wondering if I've done the right thing. SilkTork 18:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Opening paragraphs...

The opening paragraph is a bit of a mess. It should be a brief intro to what beer is, not a discussion of whether or not American IPA and English IPA should be considered different styles. That kind of thing can be included in a section on beer styles later in the article. It's got no place in the intro. Murphykieran 20:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

"the world's oldest and most popular"

Wouldn't wine pwn beer by a few thousand years? The ancient romans [3] and Egyptians [4] drinked wine. I think that should be changed, and added to the wine article. dposse 20:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Heh, i guess it's already there. I'll just removed the "popular" and reword it. dposse 20:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Current research does indicate that beer predates wine by as much as two thousand years. Early grapes were not able to produce wine. But if the article hasn't cited sources then you are right in deleting the information. However, it would be wrong to move unsourced information over to other articles. STAN

Stout line in Health effects

I took out the line about stouts having less calories than other beers. Sure, some dry Irish Stouts may have less, but the vast majority have the same or more as a typical beer.

Average Strength

"British ale tends to average 4.4%" Has anyone got a source for this official looking little fact, because I just averaged the first 15 ale bottles from my beer bottle collection and came up with 5.1% abv. Of the 15 only one was below the quoted 4.4% abv, I know its not exactly an exhaustive survey but I would certainly question what is written in the article.--Pypex 23:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's really scientific! And you do beer articles? No wonder the beer information on Wiki is so bad. How much do you actually know about British beer? Obviously very little. And your idea of research is to look at 15 beer bottles, when the majority of British ale is consumed in the cask. If you can't do better than that, then perhaps you should give up adding to the beer articles and go do something else. 4.4% is widely considered to be the average. Check out this years GBBF beer list - something a little more comprehensive than a few bottles! STAN

Calm yourself. I qualified my statement by saying 15 bottles is not exactly an extensive survey, but I maintain that you would not expect to come up with such a radically different figure if you picked 15 random bottles / beers hence I questioned the article. But you must remember I said I would question it, I did not say it was wrong.

As for the bottle cask thing I consume 90% of my beer bottled and I cant exactly walk into the local spar or even a local pub an get cask ale (with the exception of city center weatherspoons), I would assume this is also true of most people. Also my experience of beer festival beer lists is that they are heavily biased towards much stronger beers, with the GBBF being the exception rather than the rule. Regardless of you being right or wrong I suggest you read wikipedias many guidelines and policies and learn to conduct yourself properly before making any furtherer edits, and you may question the quality of my contributions when you have made more than 2 of your own.--Pypex 02:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

British beers do tend to average around 4.4%. The only British beer festivals where the average would be above 4.4% would be Winter Beer Festivals - which is what Pypex must be thinking of. Cask ales are available in most pubs. Failing that, there are keg ales. 5% is notable as the average strength of pale lager. 5.1% as an average of any sort of British beer - ale, lager, draught or packaged - seems a little high, though as Pypex says the sample was random and non-scientific (and quite possibly totally pointless as a result, but what the heck - each to their own! :) ). 4.4% is a figure I've heard and read many times. I think it is based on averages of a variety of festivals and samples. It's probably something I added to the article myself. If people feel that it is unscientific, then please just remove it. SilkTork 11:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the Statistical Handbook of the British Beer and Pub Association the average strength of all beer sold in the UK was 4.15% in 2002-2003. In 2002, the 58.3% of beer sold in pubs broke down like this:

Mild 1.3%

Bitter (up to 4.1% ABV) 16.9%

Bitter (4.2% ABV and above) 2.9%

Stout (which is usually around 4% ABV) 4.2%

Lager (up to 4.2% ABV) 24.7%

Lager (above 4.3% ABV) 8.4%.

I reckon this puts the average strength of British ale definitely below 4.4% ABV, probably 4% ABV at most.

I suppose it depends on how you look at the statement. Beer 1 is 4.1%, Beer 2, 3, 4 and 5 are 4.4%, beer 6 is 4.7% - this gives a nice average of 4.4%. However - Beer 1 accounts for 80% of volume, so the most beer sold in the UK would be 4.1%, even though the average of beers made in the UK are 4.4%. As there is some uncertainty here, the statement probably needs deleting. SilkTork 11:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The average strength given for Belgian beer - 8% abv - is also way out. 70% of beer sold in Belgium is Pils of around 5% abv. Only about 11% of sales in Belgium is of the stronger types - Trappist, Abbey and Strong Golden. These are the official figures from the Belgian brewers´ organisation. You can find them here: http://www.beerparadise.be/emc.asp?pageId=630#Table_3

The above comments on the British average of 4.4% apply here as well. It depends on how the statement is viewed - volume sales, or brand ales. SilkTork 11:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I personally find the concept of "average strength" of beers to be rather dubious, at least if you're talking about all beers. It does make some sense to talk in terms of average strength of a particular beer style, but there are many diverse styles of beer. To lump Classic Pilsener, barley wine, abbey ale, American light lager, and Irish stout together in this manner feels meaningless and indiscriminate. --Mwalimu59 14:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The whole concept of trying to average things is fraught with difficulties - and is easily misunderstood. While a statement can be made that an average strength of beer which includes the higher strengths and lower strengths and all the various colours and hopping levels may indicate an overall average, there are specific beers to which the average does not apply. Same as average height, average intelligence, etc. There are a variety of people around the world, and Asian people tend to be shorter than Scandinavian people, etc. I suppose in a sense global averages tend to sweep away distinctive characteristics of individuals and groups of individuals. It might be worth considering if averages serve any purpose at all. SilkTork 11:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Why does the Beer Styles subsection have a listing for "Pale and Dark Beers"?

I don't know of any educated beer brewers or drinkers who make a distinction between beers based solely on color. I mean, it's possible to classify fruit according to color, but I don't think it's a particularly useful distinction unless you're an interior decorator. But maybe you folks in Forn Parts(tm) do things differently. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 03:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Beer in Serbia at least is primarily classified by its color. Ever heard of red and white wine? Why do you find it unusual in regard to beer? Nikola 20:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Because I think it's weird that someone would try to put Guiness Stout and Xingu in the same category, simply because they both have the same color? Or Kristal Weizens and Pilsners? Color is not flavor.

But if you say they do things differently in Forn Parts(tm), I'm cool with that.

All the best,

Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak}

05:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

External links

This section seems a bit heavy. How about replacing some of it with a link to the Open Directory Project category? (Specifically, {{dmoz|Recreation/Food/Drink/Beer/|Beer}}) —Wrathchild ^(talk) 13:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Note: This article has a very small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. --- The Bethling^(Talk) 23:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Point 2b seems to have created a great deal of controversy and I don't think now is the time to be insisting articles "complie or die". It would be more appropriate to wait until a greater degree of consensus has been reached before “reviewing” an otherwise good articles status.--Pypex 14:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. This was not meant as a "comply or die" message in the least. Just a notice that (at that point, since the controversy had not happened), that the state of the good articles requirements changed, and that reviewers were looking at the existing GAs and re-reviewing them. It was the hope that a notice of the changes in rules would stop the shock of learing that an otherwise good article was being re-reviewed (and in some cases) delisted. The time period was to keep reviewers from delisting them before the article was given a fair chance to adapt, not as a line in the sand to the editors.

With the debate that's going on, I don't blame you in the least for wanting to wait. It's clear that there's likely going to be some clarification. Personally, I'm not even reviewing new articles at this point, because I don't want to base my decision on a standard that might change overnight. ---- The Bethling^(Talk) 19:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-review

In reviewing the article according to the Good article criteria, I have found the article lacking in several of the criteria for GA status and, unfortunately, have to de-list the article at this time. I listed my concerns below. While in-line citations are important, their absence is only one of several concerns. While addressing these other concerns, I encourage the editors to also work on the missing in-line citations because they are of vital importance to passing WP:V.
1. It is well written. - Needs Improvement

• The lead section is quite short and does not provide sufficient overview of the subject as expectation in the MOS section WP:LEAD
• The External links section is quite excessive and spammy as it becomes a depository for links. I would encourage the editors to trim the section to the most relevant and educational links that pass WP:EL and provide the most benefit to the reader.
• In the section Clarifying agent there is a divergence from the encyclopedic tone of the article with the "How to" instruction speaking to the reader in the line "Since these ingredients may be derived from animals, those concerned with the use or consumption of animal products should obtain specific details of the filtration process from the brewer." Similar issues of encyclopedic tone is in the section Styles with the line "Far more important considerations are answers to the questions: do I like this beer and why?". That line is also a bit awkward in that it references the plural "questions" but is only immediately followed by a singular question before others come later in the paragraph.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. - Needs Improvement

• The article has the vast majority of it's section completely absent of in-line citations and as such has difficulty being verified in accordance to WP:V. For the sake of brevity, I only tagged a few items of the article that would be well served with an in-line cite.
• The absence of cites also makes statements with vagueness or weasel words hard to distinguish from OR such as this line from the section International Consumption that says "Beer is considered to be a social lubricant in many societies.". The natural question is "by whom?". Another example in the Vessels section "Many drinkers consider that the type of vessel influences their enjoyment of the beer. " Again the question is "Who?"

3. It is broad in its coverage. - Needs Improvement

• There is not much treatment on consumption rates and lines such as "A lot of beer is sold in beer cans." in the Cans section could use a solid figure with a cite attached to it.
• Outside of the mention of health concerns, most of the negative attributes associated with beer is largely uncovered. There have been studies on the effects of beer drinking and violence at sports arenas (leading many facilities to end beer sales early in games). Beer is also generally considered the the main vice for underage drinking due to the frequency and popularity of beer ads.
• There is also a bit of US/European centric focus that only gives the scantiest of mention to the perception of Beer in other countries. For instance, it is mentioned that there are breweries in the Middle Eastern countries of Iraq and Syria, yet all forms of alcohol are prohibited in Islam. This presents a point of interest in how beer can co-exist with religious proclamations against it but there is no treatment of this in the article.
• I was also surprise that there wasn't much of a mention of Beer in popular culture, with particular notice to how Beer marketing has affected not only the beverage itself but also the marketing medium. During Super Bowl times there are always news report of how the Budweiser Ads help to jack up the price of Super Bowl commercials and turned the SB commercials into a viewership draw in itself.
• Also in regards to the Social perception of Beer, are there any reliable sources on "Beer snobbery"? I remember from my ex-husband's beer rating days the difference in perception among Beer connoisseurs who liked European Beers vs American Beers, Micro-brews vs Big Breweries like Bud, etc.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy - Needs Improvement

• This is mostly tied into the lacking "breadth of coverage" in regards to some of the negative public perceptions and affects of beer. However, even the ill health effects mention in that section is a bit skimpy and seems to gloss over some of the negative aspects. Overall the article presents a one side presentation of Beer in a sympathetic POV tone.

5. It is stable - Pass

• The article is sufficiently stable

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. - Pass

• However, do note that the Image:Sjb whiskey malt.jpg has a pending deletion notice for redundancy that should be taken a look at.

I encourage the editors to consider resubmitting for GA status once these concerns have been addressed. The article has clear potential to be an outstanding article and I want to thank the editors for their hard work and dedication in getting the article to this point. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Agne 06:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Lager

The exact meaning of the word "lager" differs by culture. The German word "lager" is equivalent to the Czech "ležák", meaning a beer which has a long "lagering phase". Most Czech beers (specifically, all the pale varieties) are what would be described in the UK as "lager", but (in terms of volmue consumed) most are not "ležák"