Template:Did you know nominations/Loch Ewe Distillery
<
Template:Did you know nominations
- 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 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Loch Ewe Distillery
.jpg)
- ... that Loch Ewe Distillery in Drumchork (pictured) is the smallest legally operated distillery of Scotland? Source: "Loch Ewe Distillery is the smallest distillery in Scotland."
- ALT1... that Loch Ewe Distillery in Drumchork (pictured) is the smallest licenced distillery of Scotland? Source: "Loch Ewe Distillery is the smallest distillery in Scotland."
- ALT1... that
- Reviewed: North Philadelphia station
Created by NearEMPTiness (talk). Self-nominated at 09:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC).
Removed from the prep, too many contentious issues, please see the discussion at DYK talkpage. Primary sources should never be used, and when claiming "biggest", "smallest" etc, always worth a check. Add to that a grammatically incorrect hook and you have a lemon. Removed from the prep set so it can be worked on in slow time. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Adding necessary icon to superseded previous (and still active) tick. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- What is that in English? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Next time, The Rambling Man, start your removal comment with an icon reflecting its current status. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Nope. Next time, the project shouldn't promote such error-prone articles. That you feel the need to tell me to "use the right icon" is utterly symptomatic of the complete waste of time and arcane processes used here. The hook was wrong, the article was badly written, the review was inadequate, the promotion was wrong. I don't need to "add an icon" to make it better. Sort it out, and stop asking for stupid things when actually what's required is better quality control. Thank you. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Fine. You do whatever you want, and please stop commenting when I clean up after you. We'll all be happier. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- It would better that if you didn't need to clean up at all, and got it right first time. This nomination had bad grammar, a primary source, a dubious hook, yet it made it almost to the main page. Stop blaming me for getting it away from the main page, and start looking at those who got it that far. I'll be much happier if you stop enabling this kind of garbage. Please stop commenting when we all pick up all these multiple issues with multiple hooks in multiple sets, many times a week. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, so it's now my fault. Tell you what: you take care of what you want to take care of, and I'll take care what I want to take care of, and we'll both be happier. I've long since given up hoping that you'll actually bother to use icons or do anything involving the background processes here. Perhaps you should do the same with me, since you're busy accusing me of blaming you for getting the hook away from the main page, when nothing could be further from the truth. (Don't bother replying here; I shan't answer you further.) BlueMoonset (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- You've given up hoping I'll "actually bother to use icons"?!! Seriously?? I would honestly reconsider what's important here, if that ever was.... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, so it's now my fault. Tell you what: you take care of what you want to take care of, and I'll take care what I want to take care of, and we'll both be happier. I've long since given up hoping that you'll actually bother to use icons or do anything involving the background processes here. Perhaps you should do the same with me, since you're busy accusing me of blaming you for getting the hook away from the main page, when nothing could be further from the truth. (Don't bother replying here; I shan't answer you further.) BlueMoonset (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- It would better that if you didn't need to clean up at all, and got it right first time. This nomination had bad grammar, a primary source, a dubious hook, yet it made it almost to the main page. Stop blaming me for getting it away from the main page, and start looking at those who got it that far. I'll be much happier if you stop enabling this kind of garbage. Please stop commenting when we all pick up all these multiple issues with multiple hooks in multiple sets, many times a week. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Fine. You do whatever you want, and please stop commenting when I clean up after you. We'll all be happier. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Nope. Next time, the project shouldn't promote such error-prone articles. That you feel the need to tell me to "use the right icon" is utterly symptomatic of the complete waste of time and arcane processes used here. The hook was wrong, the article was badly written, the review was inadequate, the promotion was wrong. I don't need to "add an icon" to make it better. Sort it out, and stop asking for stupid things when actually what's required is better quality control. Thank you. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Next time, The Rambling Man, start your removal comment with an icon reflecting its current status. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- What is that in English? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Here's two alts (below). Further, if I recall correctly if we don't put some sort of problem symbol after an approval one, the bot will automatically move the page back to the approved queue once it sees it.
- ALT2: ... that .
- ALT3: ... that and dividing 120L (their still) by the legal minimum of 1800L.
- Both these books from 2012 mention it as the smallest and as there is conflicting information afterwords backing the claim to its opening helps side-step the issue as we are not sure if it is still the smallest in Scotland. Alternatively we could use the second book and just mention it sidestepping a very old law (still hooky in my estimate). We still have to add these book cites to the article and update the info but here is a start. Mifter (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- ALT4: ... that Loch Ewe Distillery in Drumchork (pictured) was allowed to open in 2006 with stills 15 times smaller than the legal minimum due to a loophole in the 1786 Wash Act? (references as in ALT 3) --NearEMPTiness (talk)
- ALT5: ... that Loch Ewe Distilleryin Drumchork (pictured) was licenced to use stills 15 times smaller than those of most other Scottish whiskey makers? (references as in ALT 3)
Date and length fine. AGF on inaccessible RSC book source. I personally prefer ALT3, who doesn't love a bit of legal trickery!? Pic licence fine, QPQ done, no close paraphrasing. Good to go. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
