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 promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Pisco Sour[edit]

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): MarshalN20 | Talk 14:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correction suggestions from the first FAC review have been completed. Assuming no new points need to be addressed, this should be a much more simple FAC. I do, however, ask for a check (and improvement) to be made to the "ALT Text" I added to images. I have little experience with the ALT text and do not know if my descriptions are accurate.--MarshalN20 | Talk 14:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the request to review alt text. Some of your alt text is probably unnecessarily verbose. The thinking on alt text has changed substantially since the WP:ALT guideline was first introduced. The major purpose of alt text is to prevent screenreaders inappropriately reading out the file name (this is the default if no alt parameter is specified). In the majority of cases a minimal "photo" or "painting" etc is all that is needed. Further description is appropriate if it is vital or helpful in understanding the article when the image is not present. But if the caption already says everything that is needed then more alt text is superfluous. To test whether you have good alt text, read the alt description immediately followed by the image caption (this is what a screenreader will do) without looking at the image and if it makes sense and doesn't repeat then it will do. SpinningSpark 12:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Spin. I appreciate the recommendation and background on the WP:ALT guideline development. The ALT text should now be fixed in the article.--MarshalN20 | Talk 16:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Spinningspark. There has been some editing going on while I have been reviewing so some of this may now be fixed

Lede
Etymology
Background
Origin
Images
Links
Spread
Preparation
Popularity

You are to be congratulated on a well researched article. There is one major issue holding me back from supporting this for FA. In the dispute between Chile and Peru over the priority for the invention of the cocktail the article (probably quite rightly) comes down heavily in favour of Peru. However, sourcing for this is weak. [15] appears to be a site primarily intended to sell books and thus has reliabiltiy issues and [16] is a Peruvian news site so is suspect neutrality. A peer reviewed article would be preferable, if one could be found, for such a controversial issue. SpinningSpark 20:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC) to 08:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great suggestions. Most of them should be fixed.
  • Not sure what to write instead of "western South American". The cocktail is typical of Peruvian, Chilean, and Bolivian cuisines. Writing all three countries in the sentence could be an alternative, but I prefer the current style. Then again, maybe the problem is with "western" (brings images of the wild west); is "west" better?
  • "Vinification" seems the most appropriate term to use in the current sentence structure.
  • The "old fashioned glass.svg" image comes with the infobox description. I do not know how to change the alt text on that particular image.
  • The link tool was acting strange yesterday. Today it shows all links as good. No dead links should be in the article now.
Thanks again for the improvements.--MarshalN20 | Talk 21:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • On vinification, I really don't see the need to force the reader to look up the meaning of an unfamiliar term when there is a perfectly servicable common English term, winemaking, available to use instead.
  • On western, my concern is the use of two -n adjectival endings in the same phrase (western and American). I don't know if there is a grammar rule against this but it reads "wrong" to me. SpinningSpark 08:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for putting a pointer to the image in the text, but "shown on the image to the left" is making an assumption about page rendering which may well be incorrect for many readers (see WP:MOSIM). SpinningSpark 09:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed several of the other points you mentioned (the article's history should show which of them in greater detail). To answer some of your comments:
  • Piscola is generally made with Coca-Cola (coming from a personal understanding), but I suppose any cola would do the trick.
  • Chile celebrates its holiday on February 8. Peru celebrates it on the first Saturday of February (which can be any date other than the 8th), and apparently this is also the "International Pisco Sour Holiday" mentioned by the Australian source. Peru changed its original holiday date (the 8th of February) after the Chilean Pisco industry took the same date for its celebrations.
  • Toro-Lira's website ("Wings of Cherubs") is valuable for its "articles" section (not the book-selling part). The website is essentially a personal "blog" of Toro-Lira, which would fall on the WP:SPS guideline. As far as reliability (to justify the quality and inclusion of the blog), I argue that he is the second most reliable source in the article (behind the University of Cuyo). The San Francisco Weekly has a good quick description of the man([2]). As must have been noticed, the article is filled with information from "wine and food experts" and "expert bartenders", all of which are weak sources under a regular analysis. However, not only are they the only sources I can work with (no truly notable historian is ever going to devote his life to studying cocktails; or at least none has done it up to this point), but they are also the kind of sources to be expected for the article subject. Therefore, in many ways, this FAC might set a precedent for future Food & Wine Wikipedia articles. We must decide if the sources in the article are reliable enough for the subject to justify an FA status, or if GA is the best it can ever possibly get at this time.
  • The Peruvian newspaper (El Comercio (Peru)) is the country's most reliable news source. Nonetheless, I understand the concern and can use other sources to source the Victor Morris account (here are a few from Google Books: [3], [4],[5]), but these are the "food and wine experts" I mentioned in the (likely WP:TLDR) paragraph above this one.
Sorry for the long response, but I hope it provides a better view of the situation.--MarshalN20 | Talk 14:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can accept that food and drink articles are going to have a lower quality of sources than, say, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. What I cannot accept is a Wikipedia article taking a strong POV in a controversial dispute between the two major nations relevant to this article on the basis of such sources. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is a deal-breaker for me and I would have to oppose as it stands now. But I tell you what, if you can show that Toro-Lira meets the condition in WP:SPS, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" then I will accept him as a reliable source for the truth of the dispute even though his findings are self-published. SpinningSpark 15:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a fair deal. Prior to analyzing Toro-Lira's WP:SPS status, first we would need to know what other authors say about the dispute:

The main difference is that the information about Victor Morris is mostly a 21st century development. Prior to its discovery, people in Peru thought that the inventor of the drink was Peruvian bartender Mario Bruiget (I know this from personal experience, but the sources available don't say it now). Then the question is: What is Toro-Lira stating that is exceptional?

Therefore, the problem here is not that the controversy is not resolved, but rather that Chile and Peru are still fighting over it for the sake of the fight (which is not unusual for them). It probably also has to do with the fact that the Morris discovery is relatively recent (2006-2007). Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 16:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After a few hours of research focusing on Guillermo Toro-Lira, I found the following:
  • From the source Imbibe! I understand that Toro-Lira has some influence in the world of cocktails (see [7])
  • His account on Pisco Sour also appears on Peru's El Comercio ([8]). Other third-party publications also have it, but these are not as reliable as El Comercio.
So, that's all there is to him. I still see him as reliable. No author disputes Toro-Lira's findings, and his academic honesty is intact.
Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 00:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really enough to get Toro-Lira past WP:SPS, the requirement is that he be previously published not just mentioned. I would also accept him as an expert source if he had a decent citation h-index, or some other academic metric, or met the conditions of WP:PROF. The issue here is not whether your analysis of the history is incorrect or that Toro-Lira should not be used as a source, but rather, whether the balance of the article is neutral. You seem to be saying that you are not relying on Toro-Lira to establish Morris' priority, so further discussion of Toro-Lira's reliability may, in fact, be a red herring. Do any reliable sources, besides the previously mentioned Plath, support the Chilean claim to priority? SpinningSpark 07:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am only relying on Toro-Lira for the Cuyo and Plath analysis. The Victor Morris and Pisco Sour account is supported by all the other sources as well, including the Chilean newspaper El Mercurio. All of these sources are in the 2000's, meaning that this consensus on Morris being the inventor (and Lima the city of invention) is relatively recent.
Aside from Plath, no other reliable source attributes the invention of the cocktail to Elliot Stubb. For instance, in Google Books (see [9]), only 7 mentions are made of "Pisco Sour" and "Elliot Stubb". The first source is a personal diary or story, so it is not a reliable source. The second book is using information from "1001cocktails.com", and that is also unreliable. The third source ([10]) does seem reliable, but it only has the Stubb story (in German) as a footnote, while placing the Morris account on the main text. The other two sources have snippet views, so I cannot assert their reliability, and the last source is from the University of Cuyo (which claims Elliott Stubb's newspaper story had him as inventor of the "Whiskey Sour"). A regular Google search does have more hits for the searched terms, but none of the websites seem reliable (or safe for browsing).
What sources do mention is the "Pisco war" between Peru and Chile. They include the Pisco Sour into it, but none really bother to explain why other than that Chile and Peru dispute its origin. This creates a strange situation where I can source that "Chile and Peru dispute the origin of the Pisco Sour", but where WP:WEIGHT gives more credibility to the Peruvian account, and where the Chilean account is even discredited by Toro-Lira and the University of Cuyo.
What do you recommend should be done in this kind of cases?--MarshalN20 | Talk 12:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think I am now prepared to AGF your analysis of the sources and support promotion - provided you do something about that sentence which is still telling me that Pisco Sour consists of two words. SpinningSpark 14:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Spin. I removed the sentence that stated Pisco Sour consisted of two words. I think that is the best solution.--MarshalN20 | Talk 15:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Cirt

(having stumbled here from my FAC)

  1. 3rd paragraph lede/intro sect - the "however" could be removed from the last sentence in this sect, without any detriment to the sentence or readability.
  2. Name sect - there is a quotation in the last sentence of this sect, but unclear which cite is being used to verify this. Maybe that particular cite could be moved earlier in the sentence to be located directly after the comma after that quote?
  3. Background sect, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence, "however" word can be removed here, while still maintaining understanding of the sentence.
  4. Origin sect, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence, "asserts" might sound better than "claims" here.
  5. Nationality dispute, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence, "however" word can be deleted here, without harming comprehension of this sentence.
  6. Spread sect, dissonance in use of time tenses, present tense in 2nd paragraph, "Jimenez ... indicates..." and past tense in 3rd paragraph, "Claure... wrote ...". Might be a good idea to make this more uniform and fix standardization of the tenses throughout the article, just in case there are more discrepancies.
  7. Nationality dispute - could this be somehow moved into the History sect?
  8. Bibliography sect, no need for any columns here, not enough individual listings for this. Suggest just removing that formatting and having one single column list, normal text size.
  9. External links sect, missing a link to Wikimedia Commons for sister links. I see there is an existing category that can be added to link to in this sect for readers to view all the related images in one location.
  10. External links sect, only has one link. This appears to show favorites to that one website. Any way at least two or so other links could be added here?

Thank you for the quality improvement project on this most interesting topic. I shall have to make a point to try this drink sometime soon. — Cirt (talk) 06:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Cirt. Most of this should be fixed. I still need to check the standardization of the tenses.
The "nationality dispute" of the drink is an important part to its notability. Having a separate section is good for readers who want to know more about the nature of the dispute (rather than everything about the Pisco Sour). I think it also provides a fair amount of emphasis on the Chilean story and the English steward who made his bar in Iquique.
The bibliography section should now be a single line. Does the small text look good or do you think the normal is necessary?
Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 15:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick responses. Okay keep us posted on the tense uniformity issue. The "Nationality dispute" is really part of the History of the topic and should be included in that subsection, though it can of course still be its own sub-sub-section. Readers will still easily be able to find it there. The Bibliography section should be normal font size, no need for small size for that number of entries. — Cirt (talk) 04:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Cirt. The tense uniformity is now standard in present tense. The Bibliography is also now on normal font size. I am in the process of incorporating the "nationality dispute" into the history, but first would like to know Spin's view on how to approach the sources in the section. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 12:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Finished incorporating the "Nationality dispute" section into the history.--MarshalN20 | Talk 21:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, beverage experts concur that both kinds of Pisco are completely distinct in both production and taste. - "completely" redundant here.
I'd put the first sentence of para 3 in the lead onto the end of para 2 as it talks about the development of the Peruvian drink. Looks weird starting a para which is about the Chilean drink...
I'd italicise words-as-words or foreign words in the Background section, such as pisco and aguardiente
Bruiget's recipe added the Angostura bitters and egg whites to the mix - link "Angostura bitters" at first mention here
In Chile, a local lore developed in the 1980s - hmm, I'd never say "A lore" - "A local anecdote" or "Local folklore" or something maybe....
This has caused an ongoing dispute between Chile and Peru over the national origin of Pisco Sour - "National" redundant here.
Nevertheless, researcher Toro-Lira argues the lore - as preceding..."the story"? "the tale"?
:In the Preparation and variants section, italicise foreign terms not used in English (the fruit?)
Is the drink classified in some group of drinks with similar recipes? (do they do this with cocktails??)

Otherwise an enjoyable read. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestions Casliber. I have fixed most of the points made.
I am having some difficult with the usage of italics in the text. I am somewhat at a loss of what may be a foreign term in formal English.
In response to your last question, the closest thing to a "family" for Pisco Sour are the Sour (cocktail).
Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 04:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Serious concern: in the previous FAC, concern about Peruvian v. Chilean POV was expressed, and I mentioned a JSTOR journal article that should be consulted to correct that POV (Joelson). One minor sentence from the journal article has now been included-- that sentence does not address the concerns. On a general note, it would be optimal if reviewers declaring support would review previous FACs to assure that previous concerns have been addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sandy. Thank you for the comment.
The JSTOR information from Daniel Joelson concerns the dispute over Pisco, the brandy.
Only a paragraph in Page 8 of the source talks about Pisco Sour, the cocktail. The one paragraph has the following text:
"Though Peru and Chile are at odds over who owns pisco, both make Pisco Sour. The main difference is that Peruvians generally include egg whites, while Chileans do not. Sometimes a few drops of angostura bitters are added to the drink." (D. Joelson, "Pisco Wars")
Both are different items, although certainly related.
Also worth noting is that Joelson does have a certain pro-Chile POV, best explained by the description provided by Amazon.com ("Daniel Joelson has been navigating and probing Chile for the past five years in order to unearth its stories and hidden secrets. These discoveries have appeared in publications ranging from The San Francisco Chronicle to Latin Trade. A native of Arlington, Virginia, Joelson has been cooking since his youth and has worked as a food writer and critic. He makes his home in Santiago, Chile." [11]). He certainly is a reliable source, but not as NPOV as might be thought.
Best regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 02:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandy, I did read the previous review, but I don't think anyone should be obligated to take on objections of other editors in a prior review as their own. I did, however, probe the proposer quite carefully on this issue before supporting. Rather than lashing out at other reviewers, please provide some evidence that there is indeed POV and I might well change my recommendation, otherwise it stands as a support. SpinningSpark 02:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images check: File:Pisco sour 20100613b.JPG and File:Old Fashioned Glass.svg seem fine. File:Plaza Acho.jpg and File:2010-0109-Lima-HotelBolivar.jpg did not mention the FOP status, but I have fixed that (there is Freedom of Panorama in Peru). File:Morris-Bar-Pisco-Sour-South-Pacific-Mail-1924.JPG is not a PD-Art, it's a mere PD-Old (it's not a work of art, but a mere advertising); but it should be checked: 1924 is too soon for PD-old, and there has to be a tag for the copyright in the US. File:Pancho fierro el que trae aguardiente de Ica.jpg, on the other hand, should have a PD-Art besides the PD-old. File:Presidentes Cristina Fernandez y Alan Garcia brindan con pisco.jpg does not mention the exact location of the photo in the casa rosada page. I will see if I can help to clarify those details later, as well as making a review of the article itself. I haven't checked the internet for similar images yet, but there shouldn't be a problem, none of the "own work" images seem like an unlikely work on first sight. Cambalachero (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cambalachero, thank you for the image check. I have learned a few new things about Peruvian copyright law while working on another article. There were two prior to the current one, the first in the 1840s and the second in the 1960s. However, the advertisement image was published in a Chilean newspaper, and I have no idea what copyright terms are applied in that country.
Any and all reviews of the article are still welcome. I sincerely appreciate the group effort from all of you.
Best regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 20:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All images checked. I have fixed the licenses that I pointed before, and located the exact link of the photo of Kirchner and García. I checked for similar images, but I found Plaza de Toros at a site that credited Wikimedia for the photo, and for the Hotel Bolivar I found similar images but none that is the same image. In short, all images check fine. Cambalachero (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article review: I have to note that my natve language in Spanish, not English. So, I can't provide a trustworthy review for prose. I will mention mistakes if I notice them, but I may commit mistakes in those issues.

(I will continue tomorrow) Cambalachero (talk) 03:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected nearly all of the points. The "shown in this section" part was recommended by SpinningSpark in this review (not in its exact state, of course). Perhaps a discussion about it is necessary? I am alright with either position.
I also do not plan to add more to the "name" section, but it can certainly be expanded if further information is provided by other contributors.
Thank you for teaching me about the Wikipedia:Principle of least astonishment. Interesting read.--MarshalN20 | Talk 03:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with the suggestion about the Morris' Bar advertisement. My original issue was that it was not clear this was the advert described in the text. As long as this remains clear it is good as far as I am concerned. A further issue was indicating it as "on the left" which is dependent on page rendering. See how the images are rendered in the Wikimedia mobile version of Pisco Sour for instance. Thinking about it, even "in this section" could be problematic, I am sure I have seen (older) mobile devices separate the images from the text altogether. SpinningSpark 09:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While I am here, the automatic redlinking of scholars is not correct. Redlinks indicate that the subject is notable enough to have an article. Not all scholars are going to be notable in the Wikipedia sense, or have enough information available to be able to create an article. Merely having published is not enough, see WP:PROF. Redlinking is therefore a matter of editorial judgement and an indication that the editor thinks the subject is notable. Do you think that? Are sources available? If not, the redlinks should be removed. SpinningSpark 09:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All should be fixed.--MarshalN20 | Talk 00:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(continued review)

By the way, I have invited the user Lester Foster, a Chilean who wrote several good articles, to join this FAC. Perhaps he can contribute with a higher insight on the topic than my own, as I don't really know anything about the Pisco Sour and my review is only on style issues. Cambalachero (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. All points should now be fixed.
The 1940s oil bonanza in Peru does sound like a fun and notable event worthy of an article. Surely, the Hollywood actors did not simply go there to drink Pisco Sour.
Thank you again Cambalachero for the comments (and for contacting Lester).
Best regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 14:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from a Chilean editor

I personally feel this article is too 'Peruvian', from its point of view. I am using a couple of sources to comment here. [12] [13]

Also, please consider:

Right now I can't give more comments, but as I said previously, the article reads too Peruvian-ish, it doesn't give enough weight to the Chilean claims of the ownership/origin of Pisco Sour. Regards, Lester Foster (talk | talk) 19:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I checked the "El origen del Pisco Sour: en Perú y en Chile" page (and the subpage "Historia del pisco sour", and contain basically the same info than our article. In fact, the article explains the origin of the Chilean idea, and the "el origen..." only places the dispute on the pisco but not on the pisco sour, "A diferencia de la bebida espirituosa, el Pisco sour no está envuelto en polémica porque el Perú es el que se queda con el crédito del primer Pisco sour". Cambalachero (talk) 23:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My fault; that last source precisely supports the Peruvian origin thesis. Anyways, this article states a different Peruvian origin: "el origen del Pisco Sour se remonta al siglo XVIII, en el virreinato del Perú, donde ya se preparaba una bebida a base de pisco y limón que llamaban “punche” y que era distribuida por los esclavos".
Another article from TurismoChile further states that both countries dispute the ownership of Pisco Sour. It might not be the best of the sources, but meh. All I can say is that there has been a long time controversy regarding the ownership of the pisco and the pisco sour. Lester Foster (talk | talk) 01:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I see you cite El Mercurio as crediting the Peruvian version; you are citing instead El Mercurio Online, which is kind of the yellow-press version of El Mercurio, retaining its conservative point of view (I mean, it publishes more 'miscellaneous articles). Actual El Mercurio articles can be found on http://diario.elmercurio.com. Precisely there, I found a couple of articles which may be worthy of reading (since a subscription is required to access the website, I may send you the articles if you ask so):
Extract from "Pisco sour chileno": "Existe abundante evidencia histórica de que el pisco sour ya se disfrutaba en los puertos chilenos a fines del siglo 19, preparado con el excelente aguardiente despachado de Coquimbo. El inventor del afamado cóctel es Elliot Stubb, mayordomo del mercante inglés Sunshine, quien decidió quedarse en tierra chilena y trabajar como barman en el American Bar de Iquique. Para sorprender a sus clientes, decidió combinar nuestro pisco con jugo de limón de Pica y azúcar flor. El resultado fue un exitazo. Todo ello ocurrió dos décadas antes de que el pisco sour se popularizara en los bares limeños." (Sunday 9 April 2006) [14]
An article dated 25 May 2013 states the pisco sour is "international" (in "Sours chilenos irrumpen en barrio mítico de Madrid"). [15]
"Elogiado por extranjeros en su versión sour, el pisco chileno está lejos de traspasar las fronteras nacionales." ("Industria pisquera. Exportaciones. Un mundo por conocer", 17 February 2003) [16]
I will add some more as I find more sources that could help support, somewhat impossible to defend, the Chilean version. Regards, Lester Foster (talk | talk) 02:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all the comments Lester. I will respond to the points in bullet-style to organize all the thoughts.

  1. Elliot Stubb did not invent Pisco Sour, this being confirmed by the University of Cuyo's publication of the old Iquique newspaper that Oreste Plath used to claim Stubb was the inventor. This 2006 article may be outdated, considering the El Mercurio 2011 online article attributes Pisco Sour's origin to Morris.
  2. The second and third articles would serve good use for the "Popular Culture" and "Spread" (in History) sections. I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide me with a copy of them.

I honestly do not think anything else can be done to defend or support the Chilean claim of invention. History may change if new information comes up in the future, but all current information supports Victor Morris as the inventor. It is probably worth noting that this is also an "uncomfortable reality" for certain Peruvians (primarily the nationalists, of course) who argue the real inventor is Mario Bruiget (the Peruvian bartender). Thus, as it turns out, the true story does not truly satisfy either side.--MarshalN20 | Talk 12:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- This review has been open six weeks without achieving clear consensus to promote. Marshall, it looks to me like some of those commenting haven't yet acknowledged your changes/responses, so I'd be prepared to leave this open a little longer to give you a chance to ping them and see if it changes anything. If not, then I think we have to just archive this and give it another shot at a later stage, ideally after working through the remaining concerns with those editors. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just to confirm that I still support the promotion of this article. Yes, there is a dispute, but the article does acknowledge this. Just because there is a dispute does not mean that Wikipedia necessarily has to give equal credence to both sides. After all, we don't give the views of the Flat Earth Society equal credence in the cartography article (actually they are not even mentioned). We judge the sources by their reliability and I think MarshalN20 has done a very good job of sorting through the rival claims and assessing their reliability and relevance. Carefully researched scholarly papers are to be given more credence than national pride motivated newspaper articles. More recent research is to be given more credence than out of date sources. Given that this is an article about a cocktail, I think that MarshalN20 is to be congratulated for the quality of the sources presented. SpinningSpark 13:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the support and kind words. Sadly, if this does not get passed now, I probably will not be able to submit it again until after a year has passed (due to recent unpleasant developments at an ArbComm case that have sucked me in like a vacuum). Best regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 16:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will check the article again tomorrow in the morning. Please don't close the FAC yet. Sorry for the delay. Cambalachero (talk) 22:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked again the article, and I have no further corrections to request. I have seen the sources provided on both sides of the dispute, and it seems that the article is an accurate description of it. However, I should mention that MarshalN20 and me are part of an Arbitration case here. It's about a completely different topic, but both of us are included in it. I did not think it was a problem up to this point, as I was pointing things to fix, but I leave to the delegate's discretion to consider if I'm allowed to support the promotion of the article or if that is a conflict of interest. If I can do that, then I support. If I can't, then my intervention in this FAC may be considered over. Cambalachero (talk) 00:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- I think that this has had quite enough commentary now, and that consensus is clearly with promotion; given the scrutiny here, I don't see that the Arb case should compromise the result. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More