Talk:Olde Raleigh Distillery

Olde Raleigh Distillery has been listed as one of the Agriculture, food and drink good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: January 22, 2025. (Reviewed version).

Beer Low‑importance

	Beer portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Beer, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Beer, Brewery, and Pub 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.BeerWikipedia:WikiProject BeerTemplate:WikiProject BeerBeer
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Business Low‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: North Carolina / 50,000 Challenge Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	North Carolina portal This article is supported by WikiProject North Carolina (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article was created or improved during this WikiProject's 50,000 Challenge, which started on November 1, 2016, and is ongoing. You can help!

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 03:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that Olde Raleigh Distillery does not reside within its namesake city? (Source)
- ALT1: ... that the opening of Olde Raleigh Distillery was delayed by nearly a year in part for being located in one of the few remaining alcoholic beverage control states? (Source for "nearly a year", Source for 'A.B.C.S.')
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Failed at Math(s)

Created by Johnson524 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 23 past nominations.

Johnson524 06:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall:

Sourced, eligible, and interesting. Great work! (Review is for the first hook, I think it's more interesting than ALT1) GraziePrego (talk) 05:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Nominator: Johnson524 (talk · contribs) 06:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 11:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

'Overview and menu': surely these are two separate section topics?
- Not done I completely agree, but I can't think of a good way to do it. For some reason this was easier for another GA I wrote Two Roosters Ice Cream, but for this one it feels like so much of the information about the Whiskey and its production would be repeated in both sections. Or, if all this information was to be included just under a menu section, it would stray off-topic from the actual menu items, which is very little information to begin with. Can you think of a good way to do this? I can also change the section name to just "overview" if you'd like, but that doesn't really solve the underlying problem. Johnson524 20:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History para 1 is very long, maybe split, maybe trim too. For instance High real estate costs of up to $3 million alongside unfavorable zoning into industrial areas with low foot traffic, however, made it so the city not a viable choice is way down among the weeds, discussing reasoning about where the distillery isn't... and there are other examples. Please re-read the whole paragraph and ask "is this sentence necessary for readers to understand the distillery's history?".
- Done At least for the sentence mentioned, if there's another one that bugs you particularly I'd be happy to fix it. Johnson524 20:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

a meeting space for discussions on local growth, - ok, that bit is about the distillery (but not distilling); but it introduces details of other businesses in town, which are basically off-topic. alongside having expressed interest to relocate to the Raleigh area for example is wholly extraneous here, and the rest of the text should be cut down.
- Done I felt it necessary to include the expressed interest part to show that MacLellan's one performance at the distillery wasn't the only reason for him moving to the area/not to overhype the distillery, but has been removed. I can remove the whole MacLellan Bagpipes mention if you'd like, but I thought it was interesting to see that these efforts to bring more business to the town were actually successful. Johnson524 20:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Modern day, - always a hostage to the clock. Maybe drop or give an exact date.
- Done Johnson524 20:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a very small bit of copy-editing.
- Thank you!

Images

The only image is on Commons and properly licensed.

It would be nice to have a photo of the stills or other working parts of the process (mash tun ...) if photos are allowed inside.
- Maybe when I have a chance to go back to the town I can do that, until then I've included a better storefront photo. Johnson524 20:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

The sources seem to be suitable for the topic and of appropriate quality.

Spot-checks: [1], [7], [8], [25] ok.

[11] says "hundreds" of whiskeys which I guess verifies "100", but we should reword it really.
- Done Johnson524 20:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[16] just mentions a bagpipes event, doesn't verify anything about the bagpipes business.
- [15] and [16] are very much complimentary sources, with [15] citing the event and outcome and [16] its date. Johnson524 20:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[20] just says the distillery is "to keep an eye on", it does not verify any awards.
- That wasn't the part of the text that was being cited, but the following sentence stating the distillery "earned a Silver and Bronze in Best Barrel / Special Cask Finish and won Best Microdistillery". Upon a second look though, there's nothing in this citation that wasn't already stated in [21], so was removed. Johnson524 20:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

Interesting article, a few small fixes are mentioned above.
- @Chiswick Chap: Thank you so much for picking up this review!! I really appreciate a lot. Sorry for the late corrections as well, I was camping when you did your review and couldn't respond. Besides the one "Not done", everything you mentioned should be addressed and fixed. Cheers! Johnson524 20:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, great. Hope you had fun out in the wilds. It's a GA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.