Talk:Chattanooga Whiskey Company

Reviewer notes

There are still a few bits of language that could be more neutral (boring, dry, etc.), but nothing that wouldn't be best handled through normal editing. I feel that the sources provided meet WP:CORPDEPTH. --j⚛e decker^talk 15:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chattanooga Whiskey Company. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20140805124047/http://www.tennesseewhiskeytrail.com/whiskey-friends/ to http://www.tennesseewhiskeytrail.com/whiskey-friends/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Product listing

Recent edits by Boogerpicker2015 have introduced a long list of products. To explain more lengthily than an edit summary allows, and to support Drmies' statements, we need the facts to be supported by cited independent sources. That probably means a very brief list, using only the reviews by outsiders. For full detail, the company's own website is available, and I'm sure it includes links to things like this account by the head distiller. Yngvadottir 17:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• And a list, even a concise one, sourced to primary sources, blogs like "Whiskey Review", and brief mentions in semi-promotional local write-ups really doesn't make the cut either. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
• Boogerpicker, you should really stop promoting this product, with the trivia, the undue content, the Facebook question, etc. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
• Drmies, I definitely agree with some of your comments and have been trying to make it better. The tone was indeed biased in parts. I agree and am attempting to strip that out. On the other hand, the brand section was extremely pared down per Yngvadottir feedback, and I just sought to give some citations, rather than company website (which is what most others do). In the case of identifying what brands are available - if the company website is good enough for most all other wiki pages, I would think that these press releases and TTB approvals would be one step in a better direction. At least it's external. Getting a double citation for existing products - per your requirements - seems excessive for this section. The New York Times for instance won't be running a story any time soon on the individual brands of Chattanooga Whiskey, but they are still relevant to the company and therefore the page. I just said what is on the label. If you could do me a solid - please take a look at convention for any other distillery site. Pick one. Let's try to be reasonable about this. This is a well known brand in our town so local newspapers talk about it frequently (see citations)Boogerpicker2015 (talk) 12:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)BoogerPicker2015