Talk:Beaujolais wine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Beaujolais wine was nominated for good article reassessment to determine whether or not it met the good article criteria and so can be listed as a good article. The article was not listed as a GA. Please see the archived discussion for further information. Discussion ended: 21:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Beaujolais wine was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: March 24, 2008

	Wine Portal Beaujolais wine is part of WikiProject Wine, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of wines, grapes, wine producers and wine growing regions. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page where you can join the project and find other ways of helping.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale within WikiProject Wine.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Wine open tasks Make visible or invisible by clicking Show or Hide, respectively. Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Wine: Article request: Charles Krug, John Patchett, Global warming and wine, Mesoclimate, History of French wine, History of German wine, History of Spanish wine, History of Italian wine, California wine regions, Vine training systems, wine list Expand: any of the ~1000 wine stubs, particularly the region and "miscellaneous" ones Improve: Cabernet Franc, Canadian wine, Greek wine, Sangiovese, Vitis vinifera, wine serving temperature, other Start class articles Articles to GA: Wine, Australian wine, Bordeaux wine, Burgundy wine, California wine, Champagne (wine), Chianti, Dessert wine, French wine, German wine, Grenache, Italian wine, Merlot, Pinot gris, Pinot noir, Rioja (wine), Sauvignon blanc, Shiraz (grape), Spanish wine, Sparkling wine, Winemaking, Zinfandel Articles to FA: Cabernet Sauvignon, Riesling, Tempranillo Cleanup: Table wine, Wine competition, Wine tasting, red links in Spanish_wine_regions Peer review:Tempranillo, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a wine guide, Alcohol in the Bible Copyedit: Aligoté, Cabernet franc, Chenin blanc, Malbec, Robert M. Parker, Jr., Pinot blanc, Rioja (wine), Tempranillo Photo request: Just about all of them! Any pictures of wine regions, grape varieties or wine would be useful. In particular we need wine region maps that can be licensed for Wikipedia. Collaboration: Operation stub-killer, Nominations for top level importance Wine Improvement Drive: French wine Infobox: Template:Infobox grape variety, Template:Infobox Winery Other: Comment on the grape article template and on the grape infobox. view • edit • discuss • history • watch

	France Portal Beaujolais wine is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments, explaining the ratings and/or suggest improvements.)

Actually, my statement was correct. The crus of Beaujolais do not state on the label that they are from Beaujolais. Instead, the cru is listed, as in Appellation Morgon Controlee. See the labels at this page, for example. Yes, they do disclose the place of origin, but not the general region. Like 99% of wine drinkers, I don't have all the crus memorized, and I wrote the list in the article... :) Wnissen 04:45, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

2003 Is an AWESOME vintage for Beaujolais. Buy all you can!!!--FleurieAppellation 03:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

2003 is fine for Beaujolais but far to much for Beaujolais nouveau or Beaujolais primeur. Ericd 17:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

* Ok you wine snobs. can one of you tell me how to pronounce "beaujolais"? I've been saying BO-JHO-LAY for years now, but on NPR today I heard it pronounced BOOO-JHO-LAY. who can hook it up?? Taco325i 18:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Beaujolais as slang 2 Beaujolais and Bob Dylan 3 Clean-Up 4 Pronunciation 5 Renaming 6 Cru Grand Cru 7 Good article nomination on hold 7.1 Notes 8 GA/R Request for discussion

[edit] Beaujolais as slang

Should this even be there? I've never heard it before, and it was used maybe once, on one nerd website. I don't think its notable enough to be called "slang". In The Flesh? 22:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Beaujolais and Bob Dylan

http://www.google.se/search?hl=sv&q=beaujolais+%22bob+dylan%22&btnG=Google-s%C3%B6kning&meta=

[edit] Clean-Up

I cleaned the article up until I felt it met Wikipedia's standards and removed the clean-up tag; if anyone has a problem with this please go ahead and feel free to say so.

[edit] Pronunciation

Hey could someone upload an audio clip of the pronunciation of "Beaujolais?" That would be nice. —Tokek 14:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming

This article is more about Beaujolais wines than it is the region. Shouldn't it be renamed "Beaujolais wine" to fit in with the rest of wine articles on wikipedia? --Eubanks718 18:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess not. If you did, you would also have to rename hundreds, perhaps thousands, of articles that go by the same fashion to name the wine (or the product: the list is endless!) borrowing the name of the location or region. Alas, and such tradition applies worldwide. --AVM 23:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cru Grand Cru

The article refers to grand cru?

This has a very specific meaning in other regions of France. Is the use of grand cru correct in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.147.20.130 (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no Grand Cru classification in Beaujolais; the highest level is Cru Beaujolais. The article has a very good description of the various appellations and classification levels in Beaujolais but seemed to use "Grand Cru" as synonym to (individual Crus in?) Cru Beaujolais. To avoid confusion I removed this usage. Tomas e (talk) 11:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of March 22, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: While the article is mostly well-written, there some copyediting that needs to be done, mostly to make sure it is in compliance with the Manual of Style. I'll be doing this myself, and will note any specifics that need doing on talk.

2. Factually accurate?: Almost perfect in terms of verification through reliable sources, there are few small points when it comes to citing sources. Most importantly, there are two direct quotes that are uncited (I'll mark them with {{citequote}}). Also, it is not a strict pass/fail issue, but I would suggest you cite directly any instances where you use specific dates, measurements and statistics. Even if this means duplicating refs, it's helpful (and advised by WP:CITE).

3. Broad in coverage?: Broad in coverage

4. Neutral point of view?: Gives fair representation to all significant points of view. However, WP:NPOV advises against maintaining segregated criticism or controversy sections, and it makes little sense for a section on historical incidents to appear outside the History section. Scandals is also a fairly vague name, so think about how it might be changed. At the very least, the section should be moved to be a subsection of history.

5. Article stability? Obviously stable, no edit wars etc.

6. Images?: Provides adequate source and license information for any images present

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. VanTucky 22:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

For readability, please place any comments or questions pertaining to the hold below rather than within the body of the review. Thank you!

Every GA reviewer follows the standard I have applied here, it is beyond common practice or custom. Frankly I'm surprised that such experienced contributors don't know one of the first tenets of proper citations. I'm not going to get in to a revert war over it, so if you're still unwilling to perform the absurdly simple task of duplicating the refs to directly cite quotations, then I'll just have to fail the article. I await your response before my decision. VanTucky 18:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Per your response on your talk page, I'm failing. As you know, you're welcome to seek a WP:GAR reassessment. VanTucky 18:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

If you feel that you can pass a fully cited and reference article. That is fine. I respect that. But as I noted on my talk page, I do not think that redundancy is a characteristic of a good article. However, a broader discussion maybe useful and I will gladly initiate a discussion on a GA/R. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand that to the authors and experienced users it looks like redundancy. But immediately citing instances of direct quotations is very important for the reader. When you quote someone, it's vitally important that the quote be clearly attributed to a reliable source in an obvious way. For a paragraph of uncontroversial general information, one ending cite is sufficient. But when you essentially put words in someone's mouth, we can't assume that reader's (especially ones reading work that is assessed as being high quality) know that a citation that follows some time after verifies the quote. You're right that it's not spelled out in detail in the criteria, but it is a part of WP:CITE, and it's customary in GA reviewing. The criteria may need to be amended to make this clear, and I can bring it up in the appropriate talk forums. But I can assure you that my fellow GA reviewers agree with me on this; they're the ones that taught it to me. VanTucky 19:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA/R Request for discussion

After User:VanTucky diligent review of Beaujolais wine, he saw fit to decline the article's GA nomination because I respectfully decline to "double cite" and add redundant footnotes to sections of the article. While I respect VanTucky's convictions, I do not see "redundancy" as a fitting characteristic of a Good Article nor a requirement in the GA criteria. As section 2B notes-

"(b) at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons"

The items that VanTucky wished for inline cites for, are indeed cited and when I first removed his "cite quote" tag I noted the the source for each. However, for the reader all they have to do is simply follow the claim to the first footnote right after and they will have their source. To comply with VanTucky's requirement, I would have to add a redundant footnote that would just be immediately repeated right after. That added redundancy for redundancy sake seems quite odd and ill fitting of good article status. However, as a compromise, I offered to add the redundant footnote as "hidden text" but I suppose that is not acceptable. As the majority contributor to the current version of Beaujolais wine, I have taken great pains to insure that every claim, every line and indeed every word in the article is attributed to a reliable source with a footnote nearby. Point to anything in the article and the first footnote that follows it will be the source, without fail. For the benefit of readability, I try to craft articles where an entire paragraph can be sourced to a single footnote. When "anti-inline cites" folk cry foul and tout the strawman argument that folks at GA and elsewhere want a footnote on every line, I often point to articles like this and Cabernet Sauvignon where an entire, well sourced and throughly verifiable article can be made without having a footnote on every line. I feel that these "unwritten rules" and requirements that VanTucky (and perhaps other GA reviewers) are adding in addition to the GA criteria (and the much maligned section 2b) create more unnecessary conflict with the GA project and content writers. It gives viability to the strawman argument that "every line must be cited" and that is unfortunate. Whether or not Beaujolais wine becomes a Good Article is not a primary concern of mine. But as a former GA reviewer and one who took a lot of blows and grief because of my ardent and staunch support for the in-line citation requirement (Take a browse through some of the GA archives like Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles/Archive_8#Criterion_2b_debacle), I do think a larger discussion will be worthwhile for the GA project. There needs to be a balance between wanting our Good Articles to be throughly referenced and verifiable (like Beaujolais wine is) and requiring redundant footnotes or the worse extreme of having a footnote on every line. I appreciate your time. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The GAR is now closed. Although the fail was endorsed, there were many positive comments. See my comment and closing remark: I'd encourage citing the remaining 2-3 quotations, brushing up the lead, and renominating. This is nice work. Geometry guy 21:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)