Content
Citation(s) & Footnote(s)
Book(s)No access
Historical discovery note. No distillation procedure, folk safety test or personal-use legal permission is endorsed here.
Source argument
No access combines illicit-liquor history with modern branding and technical descriptions. It is a compilation, not one coherent empirical argument.
Evidence map
- Lines 1–11: infobox, definition and freeze concentration. The infobox's whisky/minimum-strength framing is too narrow for the article's later broader terminology. Treat moonshine, unaged whiskey and corn whiskey as distinct retrieval concepts.
- Lines 12–29: equipment and processing discussion. Keep as a record of content encountered; do not convert unvalidated apparatus descriptions, strength ranges or drying claims into a consumer procedure.
- Lines 30–49: contamination and methanol discussion. The article itself undermines a simplistic first-fraction safety rule. Seized-sample findings cannot establish prevalence across all moonshine; no generalized safety guarantee extracted.
- Lines 50–59: tests and misconceptions. Folk flame and bubble tests belong, if used at all, in a clearly labeled folklore discussion, not a proof or purity protocol.
- Lines 60–72: legality and state table. Court outcomes, stays, party/jurisdiction scope, enacted law versus bills and federal/state interaction require direct current verification. Article wording is not permission to distill.
- Lines 73–80: history and etymology. Check Grose's 1785 dictionary directly; distinguish documented usage from the appealing nighttime-origin story. The text calls the 1791 excise a tariff and describes Prohibition as a total production ban; both require qualification before historical use.
- Lines 81–85: Appalachia, transport economics, Maggie Bailey, Amos Owens, Popcorn Sutton, runners, NASCAR and Jimmy Red corn. Preserve as named leads, avoiding a single-cause origin story or unverified numerical transport claim.
- Lines 86–167: references 1–51, Sources and external links reviewed. Several entries duplicate the same drying and contamination studies; do not count them as independent corroboration. Peine and Schafft 2012, pp.93–112, is a cultural-history lead that appears in the Captures file queue; reconcile rather than duplicate it.
- Lines 168–207: navigation and authority control, not additional source evidence. Original illustrations and the John Bowman film remain unreviewed.
Researcher synthesis
Organize moonshine around enforcement and taxation, regional livelihoods, material culture, named figures, and commercial reinvention. Preserve entertaining lore with provenance and uncertainty labels. Related contextual notes: 
Assessment
Full written reading is complete, but bibliography leads are not independently verified works. Technical and current-law material is held from instructional reuse. No quotations or independent Zettels created.
Completion checklist
Preservation reconciliation — September 8, 2026
The original HTML snapshot is now included in the native Wikipedia-Captures-173-218.zip package on No access. Earlier preservation-pending language is superseded for that HTML only. Local original hashes and ZIP integrity were checked; native attachment presence was refetched. Remote images/assets were not bundled and a new cloud-byte comparison was not performed. Written-source reading does not establish that every cited work or illustration was reviewed. Other source-specific holds remain unchanged.
