# Talk:Stones Brewery

I have rewritten this page from a badly written stub to what it is now. I am to get it to Good Article Status eventually, but what is largely holding me back is source material. I would appreciate any help. Farrtj (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stones Brewery/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 23:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


### Tick list
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 


### 2nd look
Wiping the blackboard, and looking through again so it is clear what still needs attention, or if the article can now be listed. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Pass
Images.
Stable.
Reference section.
Focus. Focus is OK now that Stones Bitter has been split. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Original research.
Major aspects.
Sources. A lot of the sources are print, though these days many print sources are available online. It's worth doing a search to see if a print source is available online, as that is a great asset for readers and editors. I have found a couple and linked to them. They may be more to be found. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Neutral. Sources confirm that what is said is accurate and neutral. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Prose.
moS.
Fail
Unclear


### Pass
The lead could do with a bit of attention now that Stones Bitter has been split off. There is material there on the advertising that more properly belongs in the Stones Bitter lead. However, that's for ongoing development, the article is neat enough and informative enough to meet GA criteria. Listing. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this article suppose to appear in the template at the bottom of its page?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)  07:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC) 

Well noticed Tony. That was the result of the page move. I have now sorted the template. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)