Talk:Royal Stag

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here, here, here, here, here, and elsewhere. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Royal Stag/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MPJ-DK (talk · contribs) 00:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

So in the interest of full disclosure yes I am a WikiCup participant as well but I will be judging this based on the GA guidelines and try to be as fair as I can be. In previous GA reviews I have prided myself in working with the authors to ensure this truly does represent some of Wikipedia's finest work.

So first run through of the review I have found some fundamental problems that need to be addressed if this is to pass and I have not gotten past the lead. MPJ-US  00:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Well written Y
  • Prose is clear - Y
  • Complies with the Manual of style Y
• Verifiable - Y
  • References - Y
  • Reliable sources - Y
• No Original Research - Y
• No Copyright issues or plagiarism - Y according to Earwig's tool this checks out
• Broad in coverage - Y
  • Addresses main aspects - Y
  • Focused on topic - Y
• Neutral - Y
• Stable - Y
• Illustrated if possible - Y
  • Right copyright - Y
  • Relevant - Y

Quick Hit from the various GA Tools listed

• Use non-breaking spaces between a number and a unit - Ex. you have "750ml", which should be written as :750 ml so that it will look like "750 ml"

• I decided to just fix this myself as it's a minor issue.

Sources

So several of the sources come up as dead when I use the link checker tool. Click here to see. This lists a number of dead links (in red - total of 6), also lists some where the articles redirect to a slightly different url (in green - 9 in total) those will have to be checked to ensure they're actually still going to the right place.

Reliable source

What makes the awa.com cite a Reliable Source?  Done

Infoserv.se - a personal website by a retired Swede, not a Reliable Source  Done

prnewswire - To me this looks like a PR site, not an actual news site, but I could be wrong  Comment:

startingmonday.co.in - A design company. I have no idea what the article said as the link is dead though.  Done

ifood.tv - what makes this a reliable source?  Done

afaqs.com - Reliable source?  Done

WP:LEAD

I am currently competing in the "Take the Lead!" contest as well so I have studied the guidelines on leads in the article and come across a few fundamental problems.

• The fact that there are loads of citations in the lead led me to think that most of those were not actually in the body of the article and I was right. The lead cannot be the only place in the article that a statement is made, the lead summarizes the article. This does not, the majority of the information presented in the lead is only in the lead. The following is only in the lead section
  • Blend information  Done
  • Bottle sizes  Done
  • Where the brand name comes from  Done
  • That it's produced by company-owned and bottler-owned distileries  Done
  • The fact that it was the first Indian whiskey to not use artificial flavors - body does state they promoted it as "no artificial flavors", but that's not the same.  Done
  • Pernod Ricard identifying five core brands.  Done

• Partially done - Lead still has citations in it, if the info is in the body there is no need to cite it in the lead.  Done

Images

The "Make it Large" picture Fair Use Rational states The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing Royal Stag, - But it's not in the infobox??  Done

• I don't agree with the addition of a THIRD non-free image of a logo, it is begining to look more like decoration than actual fair use.  Done

Main body review

History section

• Here it lists the name of the company as "Seagram Manufacturing Ltd." in the lead it's listed as "Richard Pernod india" and generally the article refers to "Richard Pernod" without the India in the name, not consistent.  Comment:  Done
• History stops at 2011??  Comment:

Barrel Select section

• source [3] does not even mention the "Barrel Select"  Done
• The section seems woefully short, Good articles cover all aspects, this seems to be more of a throwaway side note - no information on sales, reception or anything?  Comment:
• Source [18], should be at the end of the previous sentence, it does not mention CARTILS.  Done

Marketing

• I don't see where source [23] covers the previous statement  Done
• [24] does not support the "In some states" portion  Done
• Need a source on the claim that "surrogate Advertising" is used in India  Done
• Source [3] does not even mention the word "mega", it's not sourcing anything related to mega cricket, movies etc.  Done
• Source [30] mentions an appeal, but the article has no follow up on this?  Comment:
• "It was requested that Seagram withdraw the ad" - no mention if they did nor not?  Comment:
• Lots of announcements of brand ambassadors - no mention of contracts expiring? Do they just keep adding ambassadors?  Comment:

Sponsorships

• An indian whiskey sponsors a Canadian music event? I think that's really the first place I get a hint that this sells outside of India, I did not actually think so before I read that - is that right or wrong?  Comment:  Done

Sales

• This section states "1.75 million cases in 2002" but the "history" section stated "2.5 million cases". Which one is it?  Done
• "It done total retail sale of $1.3 billion" - not grammatically correct, "It had a total of $1.3 billion in retail sale" would be better.  Done

• The source listed for "first to not use any artificial flavors" is not actually listed in source [4]</castrike>  Done

I will continue to review the body of the article but I already found so many issues I had to point it out to allow you as much time as possible to address this. Let me know if you have questions, need me to re-examine something or anything else and I will be happy to help. MPJ-US  00:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Hi MPJ-DK, thanks for taking this article and thanks for your nice and detailed review. I will fix all issues. This is my first GA nomination. Thanks for allowing me as much time as possible. --Human3015^{Let It Go}  05:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment:
• prnewswire - To me this looks like a PR site, not an actual news site, but I could be wrong:- prnewswire.co.uk is used in over 800 articles in English Wikipedia and few other articles on other language Wikipedia. It can be trusted.

• Volume of use is not the same as a reliable source.

• Here it lists the name of the company as "Seagram Manufacturing Ltd." in the lead it's listed as "Richard Pernod india" and generally the article refers to "Richard Pernod" without the India in the name, not consistent.:- As per requirement changes have been done. While talking regarding global scenario "Pernod Ricard" is written and "Pernod Ricard India" for more local level. Seagram was not part of Pernod Ricard till 2002, so in history section mention of Seagram is necessary. Royal Stag became brand of Pernod Ricard in 2002, before that it was brand of Seagram.

• Okay so if I see "Seagram" that should only be for events before 2002? I will check to make sure the article is consistent.

• N Brand Ambassardor section uses "Seagram" for something that happened in 2006.  Done

• History stops at 2011??:- In History there is info till 2011, rest of info can be seen in Marketing section regarding recent brand ambassadors, and also in sales section regarding recent sale. So I did not write it in History section.

• I will check through after the rewrite and see if I think it works that way.

• Yeah I am okay with this

• The section seems woefully short, Good articles cover all aspects, this seems to be more of a throwaway side note - no information on sales, reception or anything?:- Section of "Barrel Select" was small and was quite unnecessary, I merged that section to history section. No specific info regarding its sale or reception not found.

• This is one of the things that would make the article seem like it is not covering all aspects.

*Source [30] mentions an appeal, but the article has no follow up on this?:- Even after enormous search could not find follow up news. All news were saying "Wasim will make appeal". Still I added that "Wasim's lawyer denied all allegations".

• Shame there is no follow up, but if there is no sources that is how it is.

• "It was requested that Seagram withdraw the ad" - no mention if they did nor not?:- Again, not found follow up news.

• That makes the article seem unfinished but again, cannot put in what cannot be found.

• Lots of announcements of brand ambassadors - no mention of contracts expiring? Do they just keep adding ambassadors?:- They does have multiple brand ambassadors. When in 2012 they chose Shah Rukh Khan as ambassador then earlier long term ambassador Saif Ali Khan also remained ambassador. Read this news which says "Shahrukh will work in tandem with his fellow Bollywood actor Saif Ali Khan". While in 2014 when they chose Ranveer Singh as brand ambassador still they maintained stand that Shahrukh will continue to endorse the brand. Regarding others like Mahesh Babu, he is regional star, popular in specific states. As per regional popularity of various celebrities they have multiple brand ambassadors.

• Alright

• An indian whiskey sponsors a Canadian music event? I think that's really the first place I get a hint that this sells outside of India, I did not actually think so before I read that - is that right or wrong?:- Royal Stag sponsored Cricket event in Toronto in 1990s. That time it was brand of Seagram. If you see Seagram then Seagram itself a Canadian company. So they may have sponsored some events in Canada, but since 2002, it is bought by Pernod Ricard and "Royal Stag is the Indian operation of Pernod Ricard". It is specifically made for India, as one of source in article says "it is one of 5 core brands of Pernod Ricard in India".

• I think this info would be good to specify this in the article. MPJ-US  03:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)  Done

• @MPJ-DK: Kindly review the article again, also you can review article for other remaining points. Thanks.--Human3015^{Let It Go}  16:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Alright i will pick up the review again to check on your updates. MPJ-US  03:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• • @Human3015: - I see lots of great progress, this is getting closer and closer. Just a few comments left above. Great job so far. MPJ-US  04:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your appreciation. It is inspiring. I will fix other issues soon. --Human3015^{I just called to say I love you}  14:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Human3015: - I saw your latest round of edits and checked the article again. I addressed the issue with the space with the units and then a link was accidentally broken that I fixed. Both were minor issues so it was easier to just fix them. This article now hits the "Good Article" criteria to me. This is excellent work and I appreciate how receptive you were to my inputs. Contratulations this is passed.  MPJ-US  12:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)