Talk:Long Island iced tea

Long Island iced tea was nominated as a Agriculture, food and drink good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 15, 2022). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Archives: 1

Food and drink: Beverages High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Related taskforces:
/
	This article is within the scope of the Beverages Task Force, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.

Food and Drink task list:

To edit this page, select here

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:

Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt
Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar
Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish
Participate in project-related deletion discussions.
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food
Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section

Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

Spirits Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirits, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spirits or Distilled beverages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritsWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritsTemplate:WikiProject SpiritsSpirits articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spirits WikiProject task list:

This list is transcluded from the tasks page, to edit it click here.

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Spirits:

Tagging all articles that fall under our scope with {{WikiProject Spirits}} and assessing their quality and importance to the project.

New York (state): Long Island Low‑importance

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Long Island, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.

Ambiguous sentence[edit]

Close variants often replace the sour mix with lemon juice, replace the cola with diet cola or actual iced tea.

I am having trouble parsing this sentence. Does the comma mean "and" or "or"? Could this be clarified? JIP | Talk 10:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Long Island iced tea/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Initial review[edit]

Reviewer: HenryCrun15 (talk · contribs) 03:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	I would recommend using the term "cocktail" rather than "alcoholic mixed drink" in the header, unless you have a reason to use the current term? Done In the header, this sentence isn't clear: A popular version mixes equal parts vodka, tequila, gin, rum, triple sec, with 1+1⁄2 parts sour mix and a splash of cola. We know that the first five ingredients are in equal parts, but not how much, so when it then says "1+1/2 parts sour mix", it isn't clear how much that is compared with the other ingredients. Replaced this with the IPA standard, as it seems like the best option to describe variants on the basis of the standard. Reverse the order of Lastly, it is decorated with the lemon and straw, after stirring with bar spoon smoothly. so the steps are written in the order they are performed. Also, it should be "after stirring with a bar spoon smoothly". When you talk about "variants" in the heading, it isn't clear if you mean "slight variations to the base recipe", or if you mean "similar cocktails with ingredients changed" (like the Tokyo Iced tea which substitutes midori for triple sec". If it's the former, then the header paragraph on variants is a bit confusing - it says that most recipes use less triple sec than the other spirits, but the first recipe given in the article has equal parts triple sec to each other spirit. If this recipe is uncommon in that respect, then it shouldn't be given as the first example. The drink was then perfected by Ransom Bishop,... "Perfected" is an odd phrase. Do you mean something like "made into the drink known today as a Long Island iced tea"? Done by GA-RT-22 This drink included whiskey, maple syrup... Do you mean the version by Old Man Bishop or by his son? If both are like this, how did it become the drink we know today? Done I see that there is a separate article on variations of the cocktail, that is, recipes that change ingredients. Given how short both articles are, I would recommend merging the two. I thought I should split it in order to accomodate the many variations, but I guess it's best to do so if the variation list is too long in the future. Will merge now. Done
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	I have concerns that the inline citations might not be appropriately describing the content they are next to. For example, the first sentence says that the drink has ...a splash of cola, which gives the drink the same amber hue as iced tea. The inline citation for this is the IBA, but that webpage does not describe the color nor where the color comes from. Please ensure that all the material matches the inline citation that follows it. My bad, will check the citations again. Please fill out the references with more detail, such as making sure that all the sources have the publication name in them. Done partly by GA-RT-22 and partly by me.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	At least one of the sources referenced by this article states that "the first time a recipe for the Long Island iced tea appeared in print was in 1961, when it appeared in Betty Crocker's New Picture Cook Book." Does this not put lie to the idea that it was invented for a competition in 1972? Several other sources on the web repeat this statement. Is it true? It doesn't appear in the Wikipedia article at all. Done by GA-RT-22, see discussion below. Bartenders might react to an order of this cocktail by recommending simpler and better-tasting cocktails. All that the source says on this is that one bartender would do this, not that this is a common thing for bartenders to do. Removed. I have replaced it with another sentence sourced to Insider, whose WP:BI reliability is somewhat disputed, so I'd appreciate a response to see if the new sentence stands well on its own or if another source is needed.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	This article leaves it unclear when the drink was first developed and how it evolved into the core recipe used today. For example, it says that Robert "Rosebud" Butt claims to have invented [the drink] (emphasis added) but provides no further information on whether his claim is valid or not. It does not note the commonly stated claim that a recipe under the name of "Long Island iced tea" was published in 1961. If the history is murky, that's fine, but this article needs to present the murky history with clear evidence for and against each claimed origin.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The company also installed duct risers, electrical closets, automatic transfer switches, and elevator machine rooms feels like getting into too much detail. If we listed what every contractor and subcontractor did we’d need a sub-article. Done The whole to add up-to-date technology paragraph seems a bit bloated. And most buildings are built with the latest and emerging tech of the time? Removed
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No concerns.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Good image with long-stable Creative Commons license.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Overall I think there are some issues to be worked through before assessment can continue. I'd recommend focusing on the following to improve the article: Provide more information about the recipes created by Old Man Bishop and his son, and set out these recipes in as much detail as possible. Confirm if a "Long Island iced tea" recipe really did appear in a 1961 book; if it did, set out its recipe and if possible information on who wrote that recipe and where it came from. No such recipe was found in the book. Provide evidence for and against the claim that Robert Butt invented the cocktail for a competition in 1972 (or that he invented a drink very similar to ones made in the past that had been forgotten). Include more information on how the base recipe varies, such as by giving different recipes presented by notable books, notable websites, or notable cocktail makers. Would this be resolved by merging the sub-article, or do you mean variations as to the amount of each ingredient (e.g. one book says 30ml lemon juice while another says 20ml)? Merge the article on variations on the cocktail into this one. Done

Thanks for the comments, HenryCrun15. I'll get to them soon :) In the meanwhile, hope you enjoy your weekend. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've tackled a few of them, I'll tackle the rest soon enough. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Crocker[edit]

There is no mention of Long Island Iced Tea in the 1961 Betty Crocker. FidelCashflow checked this in 2016. His comments are in Talk:Long Island iced tea/Archive 1. I have just checked this again myself and can confirm. GA-RT-22 (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. If that's the case, should the sources that report this be considered unreliable, and so not used as sources for this article? I would also recommend the article addresses the supposed 1961 publication and present the evidence against this, since it is often repeated as fact and a reader may want to know about it. HenryCrun15 (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would be fantastic if we could mention Betty Crocker, but the problem is there is no RS that debunks it, and my having checked is WP:OR. I suppose we could do this anyway on the grounds of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, if we have consensus for it. GA-RT-22 (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I trust your having checked it, GA-RT-22, so if it isn't there then I agree with HenryCrun15's proposal on how to move forward. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not super comfortable with it but I put it in. Feel free to edit as needed. GA-RT-22 (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA-RT-22 I just found a source saying it can be found in her 1966 book "American Home All-Purpose Cookbook". Do you have that source? It is entirely possible it appeared in the latter book and people misremember it as appearing on the first one.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@A. C. Santacruz: that book (by Habeeb, not Crocker) is a bit rare. None are available online or at libraries or by inter-library loan in my area. I found one at the Lenawee District Library in Michigan but it's unlikely I'll be able to get to it soon (I'm in a different country). It does have a 27-page chapter on beverages, but I find it unlikely that it would have a Long Island recipe. The Back Label doesn't appear to me to be RS, it seems to be a blog. And it repeats the false claim that the recipe appears in Crocker 1961, which makes me think they didn't actually check either book. And I've found this claim in a few other blogs, like this one, which makes me think they are all just repeating each other. GA-RT-22 (talk) 15:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response. It seems the claim is probably false then. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read that exact edition of the book and there was no mention of Long Island Iced Tea. There was the word cocktail in the context of shrimp cocktail. And there was something else that mentioned Long Island, but as I recall, it was just another seafood reference. The drink, the Long Island Iced Tea, was definitely not in that book. FidelCashflow (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Co-GA[edit]

GA-RT-22 You've been doing plenty of work (more than me, really) on the article since the review started. If the article passes GA status in this nomination, I'd like for you to take credit as well. Of course, if you do not wish you do not need to do so, but I thought at least offering was the least I could do.Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well I do what I can. Please feel free to change anything, I'm not protective. GA-RT-22 (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up review[edit]

It has been over seven days since I first reviewed this article, and though several improvements have been made, I don't think it meets the Good Article criteria. There are some major issues that I think stops it from meeting the standard as the article stands:

Reliability of sources: This article relies heavily on internet sources, frequently short articles from magazine-style sites. Many of these sources have problems, such as making untrue statements (such as Insider stating the cocktail appears in a 1961 recipe book when it does not), relying heavily on primary sources (the PBS video simply presents Robert Butt's story in his own words), drawing from other sources uncritically (the HuffPost article is drawn largely from the PBS video), or writing non-noncommittally (the AP / Kingsport Times-News article presents the claims of the Kingsport marketing manager without investigation, and neither says Butt's claims are true or false, only that he is "most often credited" with the drink). It's my concern that this reliance on such sources risks too much copying from other internet sources by quick writers. There are no sources contemporary to either the 1970s or the 1920s, and I don't believe that anyone writing any of the cited sources consulted any such documents. Most notably, none of the sources are by a researcher / journalist who has looked into the evidence of any of the claims.
Extrapolation: Many of the sources are single bartenders expressing their personal opinions. These opinions have ended up being presented as representative of society's opinions on the drink. I feel there remains too much extrapolation from a few opinions this way.
Missing information: There are a number of facts which a reader would want to know that are absent. The evidence for the history of the drink has been discussed, but there is more. Is this a popular drink today, or is it seen as a novelty, only ordered for a laugh because of its unusual ingredient list? Is it preferred by certain demographics (eg college students, Americans, people wanting to get drunk fast)? How is the drink portrayed in culture and what does this say about society's perceptions of the drink? (I found, for example, scenes in The Simpsons and The Big Bang Theory make essentially the same joke - someone drains it in one go and instantly becomes extremely drunk. A similar joke is in Cruel Intentions, a person sculling one down without realising it's alcoholic.)

Because of all of these together, I am declining this Good Article nomination. I expect that the sources needed to get this article to reach the standard are out there, but would likely require digging into sources that are not online. HenryCrun15 (talk) 05:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time. I pretty much agree with all that except I'm not so sure the sources are out there. It's not a drink that appeals to cocktail historians in the same way "true" cocktails like the manhattan do. GA-RT-22 (talk) 06:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for history[edit]

Here are a few sources I found that might help clarify the history. Not all are RS so use with care. I'm not convinced the drink actually appeared in Betty Crocker in 1961. Looking for a copy now.

Here is the Betty Crocker book at IA: Betty Crocker's new picture cook book

GA-RT-22 (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GA-RT-22: The New York is non-RS and has been some time. It is complete unreliable. Never use to reference in an article. Huff-post is slightly better, but depends on the contributor or topic. Best avoided if your not sure. scope_creep^Talk 06:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Old Man Bishop's recipe[edit]

Old Man Bishop's recipe was specifically requested as part of the recent GA Review. I agree that we don't need dozens of random recipes from various lifestyle magazine, but this one in particular is significant because it claims to be the original recipe, about which there is some doubt. I suggest we leave it in, but at the least I think we need consensus to remove it at this point. GA-RT-22 (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]