Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pisco Sour/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 08:27, 14 December 2012 [1].

Pisco Sour[edit]

Pisco Sour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): MarshalN20 | Talk 01:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because...I think it meets all the FA requirements.--MarshalN20 | Talk 01:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Review for overlinking throughout. For eg: Pisco has been linked eight times in the article, and also finds it way into the See also.122.172.173.190 (talk) 14:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Pisco reduced to four links, including the one in the See also, and other overlinked terms also de-linked.--MarshalN20 | Talk 20:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jesse V.

Fixed. Royal Spanish Academy apparently changed its links (from buscon to lema). Used a google cache of the El Comercio document, but I am not sure if that is a problem or not. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 03:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Reluctant Oppose Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overlinking: There are still more than a dozen repeated links in the main text (excluding lead and captions) including at least three for Spanish
  • Pisco is linked twice as a "see also", despite being wikilinked in the text, sour is also in "See also"
  • Is it possible to get a copy edit from a first language English speaker, there are too many errors and infelicities? In the lead alone, bitter should be bitters, capitalisation of Upper is incorrect, capitalisation of Whiskey Sour differs from that used in its article, key lime presumably means the juice. Do you inaugurate a bar? Why is it coincidental that the earliest mention is the same as the claimed date of invention? — and the structure of this sentence is odd anyway? Why "capital of Lima?
  • You are using long form ref to cited texts, either use short form and cited texts, or full cites with no bibliography, see Wikipedia:Citing sources. Reference formatting is inconsistent too, eg publisher locations. You don't need retrieval dates for on-line copies of real publications.
  • I'm sorry if this seems negative, it's a potentially interesting article, but reading the lead and doing a couple of basic checks for MoS suggests that if I continue reviewing, I'll just be making long, long list of errors Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your notes are much appreciated, but please do consider that your conclusion may be extreme. It has taken me a minimal ammount of time to correct all that you mention. I am using the lang-es Spanish template, hence the alleged "overlinking". Do you recommend I no longer use the template?
Peer review doesn't work in these kind of topics. I've tried it in other articles of this nature (Latin American culture). Added that my English grammar is quite good, with a few exceptions here and there, but nothing critically terrible.
I use the term "Whiskey Sour" in capital letters because that is how the sources name it. A Google Books search shows that the name is commonly both capitalized and non-capitalized ([2]); it just depends on the source.
The only negativity in your comment is the term "potentially interesting," which is potentially arrogant. The article may not be interesting to you, but it certainly is to me (as well as anyone who knows that this is a main topic in Latin American culture). Best regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 14:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't bother me, but you may find describing your reviewers as arrogant to be counter-productive. I rarely oppose, so I'm not just putting the boot in for fun. Your blurb to sell the article to us was "I think it meets all the FA requirements.", hardly a ringing endorsement. I just checked for duplicate links again, there are still a dozen or so, so not everything has been fixed. I can't see why you need multiple links for Spanish, in fact it's so obvious that you could get away with not linking at all if you wish. I just think there are too many things to fix at FAC. Just in the first line, we have Pisco, Bird and Sour. I'll take your word for it that the Quechua Pisco should be capitalised, but I'm certain the other two aren't proper nouns. If you want to persevere in the bear pit that is FAC, fell free to seek clarification here or on my talk page, but if you're not happy with my comments, there are plenty more unreviewed articles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No need exists for you to take this personal. My comment "potentially arrogant" is clearly explained as a note to your comment "potentially interesting," which I also called "the only negativity in your comment." I believe this explanation is already beyond necessity, so, if you still feel insulted, then nothing more can be done from my part.
I am not "selling" the article to any of you. That's not my style. I can tell you many wonderful things about it and attempt to cloud your vision with a candy coat, but I preffer for each of you to get personal conclusions on the article (not mine). As I commented in my prior response, "Your notes are much appreciated." Any and all suggestions for improvement are positive in my view.
Can you please show me how to check for duplicate links so that I may see exactly what you are seeing?
Your improvement suggestions are correct. I still think the conclusion you are reaching is extreme (how does a capital "b" in "Bird" interfere with the quality of the article?), but the comments are perfect.
All the best.--15:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I've put the script and some comments on your talk, to save clutter here. The oppose above isn't set in stone, and if the article can be worked up sufficiently, I'll strike it, but I don't think we are there yet Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made these edits, please check
  • The right to produce and market Pisco, still made in Peru and Chile, is subject to disputes between the countries. — It's not clear to me why any country has rights over what another country produces, please clarify.
  • In 1916, he inaugurated in Lima his saloon Morris' Bar, quickly becoming... — clunky, perhaps In 1916, he opened Morris' Bar in Lima, and his saloon quickly became...
  • attention to the country. In Lima, the Pisco Sour received attention
  • Additionally, Ernest Hemingway and Orson Welles are said to have been big fans of "that Peruvian drink." — you've already mentioned Welles, and it's not clear to me who made the quoted statement.
  • there are significant differences between the two [Pisco] versions. Chilean pisco is mass-produced and can be adulterated before bottling; the Peruvian spirit is made in small batches in pot stills, and cannot be altered in any way before reaching the consumer. — I'd been waiting since the lead to find what the difference between the two piscos was, this doesn't tell me, it just says they are made in different ways, for all I can tell they taste identical. Also, since adulteration is illegal, I would have thought it was easier for a small producer than a large company, why is it impossible for it to be adulterated?. How widespread is the sale of contaminated pisco anyway? This reads like propaganda for the Peruvian drink rather than anything objective.

:* "Día de la piscola" — why is the first word caoitalised?

  • You need a consistent capitalisation policy for your refs, even if it involves changing the original. All caps titles are definitely wrong, and you need to settle on title or subject case for the others.
  • I'll probably have another read through when you have had time to respond Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jim. I have improved the grammar, following your recommendations. In regards to the Pisco dispute, I will probably need one or two new sources that describe it in detail.
To summarize, Peru claims that Pisco should be under the rules of appellation, given that its territory holds ownership over Pisco, Peru and specific Pisco-producing vineyards. Chile also claims appellation, arguing that its northern regions (which used to belong to Peru prior to the War of the Pacific) also produce Pisco; however, to claim a name of origin they renamed their city of La Unión to Pisco Elqui.
Regarding the "adulteration", I think the author made a poor use of words. I'll find a better description.
"Dia de la piscola" is the holiday's name; I should probably capitalize the "p" in piscola.--MarshalN20 | Talk 04:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those, although you may have gone a bit overboard with your standardisation of the title, usually little words like "the", "and" "of" (or their Spanish equivalents are left uncapitalised. I'll have another read through soon, but just one extra now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both Chile and Peru claim ownership of the Pisco Sour and denominate it their national drink. Peru considers this cocktail and Pisco should be denominated as exclusively Peruvian. Nonetheless, Chile in turn also claims ownership over both alcoholic beverages. — repetitive in words and ideas, what about Chile and Peru both claim the Pisco Sour as their national drink, and each asserts exclusive ownership of both Pisco and the cocktail. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Almost done with the fixes. I only need to include the part on the "Pisco dispute." Could you please check that the material I added is alright? Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 00:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and two final comments I'm happy with the changes, I think the article reads much better now and I've indicated by support. Just two things I'd like you to check Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*Capitalisation of the drink — "Pisco" in Quechua, "Pisco" in English, "pisco" in Spanish. Are these all correct?
*"mud containers" — can't be containers made of mud, but containers for carrying mud seems unlikely too. Does this mean earthenware? needs clarifying
Jim, great questions. To answer the first one, "pisco" in Quechua should probably be in lowercase since it's a simple word. In Spanish and English, the name is capitalized since it is the official name of the alcoholic beverage (this is standard in English, I think). However, in Spanish it is also common to use the lowercase version. I assume it may have something to do with the fact that, in Chilean & Peruvian Spanish, Quechua words are sometimes commonplace enough to be considered part of the language.
Regarding the second one, earthenware is the correct term (see p. 311.). I made a direct translation from Spanish-to-English (In Spanish the term used is "barro", which translates directly to "mud", but which can also mean "earthenware" depending on the context). Thanks again for all the help. I see a huge difference between the "Before Jim" and "After Jim" versions of the article. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 22:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I fixed the other occurrence of "mud". With regard to Nikkimaria's comments below, Ref 7 should have a book/journal/report title Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done.

  • COED should be italicized
  • Check alphabetization of Bibliography
  • Be consistent in what format you use to notate Spanish-language refs
  • If you're accessing journal sources through a database, include full information for the journal as well as the database name
  • Check italicization throughout references
  • FN7: what kind of source is this?
  • FN43: formatting
  • For US locations, states would be more helpful than country alone
  • Check for template glitches like doubled periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Almost everything has been fixed from this list. Not sure about the following:
  • COED should be italicized (What is COED? Copy-edit?)
  • FN43: formatting (original source is from ElComercio.com; using google cache to get it. Not sure how this should be formatted).
Could you please further explain on these two points? Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 10:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting topic; it's a shame you haven't gotten many reviews.

  • There seems to be an overuse of italics. "Straight up", "Pisco Sour" and "Morris' Bar" are all phrases that should not be italicised. See WP:ITALIC.
  • "distilleries "to make wine into brandy," and" Is that comma in the quote? If not, it should be outside the quote marks.
  • "it is assumed that it was a crude mix of Pisco with lime juice and sugar, as it was the whiskey sour of those days" If this is a translation, surely it should be as was rather than as it was. If it's a direct quote, perhaps {{sic}}?
  • "albeit it seems for the better" Awkward construction. Perhaps "albeit, it seems, for the better"?
  • I think the fact that there's a holiday named after the cocktail is worth mentioning in the lead.
  • "the Valparaiso restaurant "La Playa" in Chile" Why speech marks?
  • The last paragraph of the popularity section probably belongs with the national dispute section.
  • I would be inclined to say I'd like to see more about actually making it (sure, we aren't a cookbook, but do you shake them up? Ice? Garnish?) and I'd also like to see a little more about whether people like it, but I appreciate that "reviews" aren't exactly easy for cocktails.

Ok, here's the key problem: I'm worried that this article violates the NPOV policies. While I agree with your position in the talk page discussion about sticking with the notion that it originated in Peru, I do feel that you should clarify in the lead, and in the prose, that the Peru origin story is generally believed, as the certainty with which it's currently stated, I feel, is problematic. A paragraph in the origin section on the alterative story would also be good. As it is, there's an element of "This is what's true, and then this is what some morons believe", which is not what we want. The article's generally very strong looking, but I worry that this is potentially taking a particular side on a controversial issue. J Milburn (talk) 22:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review J Milburn!
To be honest, I'm not a big fan of alcoholic beverages, so I would not be able to provide any more details about how to make the Pisco Sour. Surely, by making this an FA article, it would become more visible to audiences who know more about drink preparations, and they (in turn) would be be able to include more information on that subject.
Aside from that, I have done nearly all of the suggestions you presented for the article's improvement. I disagree with moving the last paragraph of the popularity section given that the information is purely popular culture (the opinions of a singer and a comedian).
Regarding your last point, I have made sure the article expresses solely that which is presented by the reliable sources. While the American bartender's origin story is backed up by historians (from Chile and Peru), the English steward's story is not. Moreover, the steward's story is contradicted by an independent university research publication (from Argentina). Therefore, per weight, it would be an error to place what is essentially a fringe theory at the same level of the mainstream story.
In my view, any possible problems with the NPOV policies is solved by having the "nationality dispute" section. That whole section is devoted to presenting the dispute and explaining it. In fact, the existence of a dispute is never denied and is even included in the lead. As a counter-example, not mentioning the dispute (or pretending it does not exist) is what would constitute a breach of NPOV.
Best regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 00:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. I am delighted to see another well-researched article for the food and drink category! I think your grammar is actually quite good, but the writing could be much more focused on the topic.

  • I am confused by the lead and the eymology section. Is the drink actually named for the bird, or named for the base liquor Pisco (either Peruvian or Chilean)? If it's name for the base liquor, I don't see the point in going into the Chilean terms.
  • I don't really see the point of knowing which notable people attended Morris' Bar. That seems like trivia to this article.
  • I think the information about Victor Vaughan Morris (from birthplace to previous career to his nickname) is probably too detailed for this article. Perhaps enough to say that "It was created in the early 1920s by bartender Victor Vaughn Morris, an American who had lived in Peru for several decades. His saloon, Morris' Bar was popular with both the Peruvian upper class and English-speaking foreigners. Morris often experimented with new drinks, and developed the Piscou Sour as a variety of the Whiskey Sour."
  • I don't think we need to know where the whiskey Sour originated - or perhaps that could be in a footnote?
  • The prose in the paragraph "The Pisco Sour gained rapid popularity" needs some cleanup. It does not flow well, is contradictory, and includes information that is not important at all (that Porcari made his discovery in 2005"
  • The last paragraph of the section on origin likewise needs some rewriting. Too much extraneous information - let's stick just to the relevant facts.
  • It is great that you have translated the source quotations from Spanish to English. Are the original Spanish words supposed to be in the main text or in the footnotes? I thought probably in the footnotes but am not sure of the MOS ruling on this.
  • I do not really understand why there is a picture of the bullring....I do see the caption, but that is a tenuous link.
  • I think the section Nationality dispute would be better served as part of the rest of the article. The first two paragraphs should belong in background or origin. the second paragraph should likely be in the Popularity section.

Karanacs (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments Karanacs.
I modified the etymology information. Is it fixed, or is it still confusing?
I corrected pretty much everything else you mentioned.
The bullring's picture is there to help the reader visualize the location where the "drink ancestor to the Pisco Sour" was sold. I think it helps, but if you really think it is not of help then I can certainly remove it.
Regarding the MOS ruling, I have no idea. These Spanish-to-English translations were done during the GA Review.
I fear that removing the "nationality dispute" section might create a WP:NPOV issue. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 21:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you should remove the Nationality Dispute information at all - it is interesting and very relevant. I don't see how moving it would create an NPOV issue - do you think it would be slanted towards the Peru or Chile side? Karanacs (talk) 20:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also found what I think is the appropriate guideline on foreign-language sources: WP:NONENG - When quoting a source in a different language, provide the original text and an English translation, either in the body of the article or in a footnote. So the way you have done it is okay, and the way I am most familiar with (the original language in the footnote) is also okay. Karanacs (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thank you for finding that information. I generally work on these Spanish-to-English articles, so it will come in useful for other projects.
Regarding the Nationality Dispute section, I think moving it would slant the article towards a Peru POV. My fear is that not having it is not properly acknowledging the existence of Chilean popular opinion on the matter (I write "popular" since even a Chilean historian writes about Morris being the inventor of the drink). Nonetheless, if you think this is not the case, then I shall follow your recommendation.
All the best.--MarshalN20 | Talk 00:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noleander

  • More direct wording: " ..and the term sour (in reference to the mixed drink family of the same name)." - Readers would probably get more information if that sentence just explained what a "sour" drink was. E.g. change to " .. and the term sour (in reference to a lime juice and sweetener components)".
  • Need clearer statement: "By the 16th century, in the colonies of Chile and Peru, Spanish settlers began to produce aguardiente,[9][10] a distilled spirit made by diluting alcohol in water. ..." - That paragraph confuses me. I'm expecting to see a plain statement like: "Pisco is made from fermented grapes" or "Pisco is distilled from fermented grapes" or "Pisco is made from grapes". Instead the reader is left to piece together the facts: grapes are mentioned; and Pisco is mentioned ... but they are not connected in one clear sentence.
  • wording: "... exact date when Morris made the popular cocktail." - "made" should be "created" or "invented" or "originated" or ...
  • Text for reader: - The advertisement with caption "One of the oldest known Pisco Sour ..." - Recommend that you add a footnote to the caption which gives the full text of the ad. Some reading-impaired users may not be able to read the ad image.
  • Wording: " In fact, the oldest known ..." - "in fact" is too conversational, not encyclopedic. Just remove it.
  • Wording: "Nonetheless, Chilean businessman ..." - "Nonetheless" is generally never needed in encyc. articles; I don't think is is helpful in this context.
  • Grammar: "Chile disputes the national origin of Pisco Sour with Peru." - The "peru" is too far removed from "chile disputes" ... some readers may have a hard time parsing this. I cannot think of a better wording off the top of my head. Maybe "Chile and Peru are engaged in a dispute over .."?
  • Dated: "Argentine president Cristina Fernández and then Peruvian president ..." - Word "then" can be removed ... wording in WP articles should be timeless. It is understood that all presidents will become former presidents eventually.
  • Preparation steps: The preparation section is missing the step-by-step process used. E.g. the InfoBox at top of article says "Shake hard or blend with ice and strain into glass. The bitters are an aromatic garnish topping the finished drink, put on top of pisco sour foam." That kind of info needs to be repeated in the Prep section.
  • Footnote #31 is missing a period at the end.
  • The "External links" tool (upper right on this page) shows a dead external link: El Orígen (info) [rree.gob.pe] ... that has to be fixed.
  • Although not required for FA status, it is customary to include "alternate" text for the image, using the "alt" tag. See WP:ALT. This is text you put in each image descriptor, which helps blind users of WP: they have software tools that read text to them: the alt text describes the picture in words, an those words are then read to them.
  • Overall a fine article. Leaning to Support once the above are addressed.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 16:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments Noleander. I shall do all of them, but please give me a few more days. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 01:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; I'm sorry for the delay in weighing in here, but I was hoping my JSTOR access would come through. Another reviewer mentioned earlier concern that a Peruvian POV predominated here over a Chilean one. I suggest that this article must incorporate:
  • Joelson, Daniel (Winter 2004). "The Pisco Wars". Gastronomica: The Journal of Food and Culture. 4 (1): 5–7. doi:10.1525/gfc.2004.4.1.1.

to be accurate, comprehensive and neutral. This source contains a good deal of information which is at odds with information in this article; perhaps you can get a copy through your local university. There does seem to be a Peruvian POV, and some accuracy issues. I haven't checked the Spanish language sources for accurate representation or close paraphrasing, since many of the sources used are extremely long, and I'd rather see this source and other suggestions incorporated before I undertake that work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate notes -- I'm afraid this nomination doesn't seem to be getting any closer to consensus for promotion after seven weeks, so I'll be archiving and asking that further work be undertaken away from FAC. Beyond what's already mentioned, I'd suggest an independent copyedit, as just based on the lead I have prose concerns:

  • "in reference to a lime juice and sweetener components" -- don't understand what the "a" is doing there.
  • "Moreover, Peru celebrates a yearly public holiday..." -- we can do without "Moreover", particularly when the next sentence begins "Nevertheless".
  • "Pisco Sour holds notability as a topic of Latin American popular culture" -- "holds notability as a topic" is a bit clumsy compared to say "is a notable topic"; in fact I'd hope there's a better term than "notable" in any case.

Once additional work is complete, and a minimum of two weeks has passed, the article can be renominated for FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Pisco_Sour/archive1&oldid=1136095975"