Talk:Champagne Krug

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wine WikiProject Champagne Krug 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.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale within WikiProject Wine.

This article is laced with opinions, and its a stub.

Contents

[edit] Written as Advertisement?

The contibutors opening paragraph seems to be written as if it were from a wine connisseur, and really does not stress the origins or importance of Krug in the wine industry. I urge others to conduct careful and accurate research on this beverage and contribute to the article without making it sound like a review in a wine tasting magazine.

[edit] Lacking accuracy

I'm changing a fair amount of information on this page, as it is misleading and shows a lack of understanding about wine and in particular the Champagne region's practices. Terroiriste 10:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] organoleptically inert oak

Never heard about organoleptically inert oak. Why should they pay for it ? Why should they have additional work with 205 Liter casks ?? --Symposiarch 10:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Organoleptically inert oak is a short way of saying oak barrels which have been used so many times that they no longer impart organoleptic qualities to the wine stored within, only physical properties. It is used to refer to either medium to low toast oak after about 2-3 years, or high toast barrels after 4 years, or large casks which have been cleaned and used so many times that they no longer impart any oak flavour. The mention of 205 litre barrels is to distinguish it from the normal size of barrels, which is either 225 or 228, depending on whether it is Bordeaux or Burgundy barrels. Terroiriste 11:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Advertising

I can understand that you see mention of the stainless steel manufacturer's name as advertising. let me assure you that I do not even know anyone from Laval :) I only put it in, since they are generally recognised as one of the top sources of stainless steel fermenters and most wineries who use them point out that fact. I am of the opinion that if the information is available and unbiased, it is safer to put it in that to leave it out, but I have no opposition to you prefering to leave it off the page, although I would be interested to know if you still stand by that given my explanation. Thanks for taking the time to contribute to this page though :) Terroiriste 12:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think your explanation changes anything. The fact that you don't know anyone from Laval does not justify the inclusion of their name. How can WP editors check that all information provided to WP is unbiased? Impossible. Should we refer to the names of the can and bottle companies that supply Coca-Cola just because they are recognised as one of the top sources for such materials? Of course not. Alanmoss 12:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

would you also mention the dry yeast they use, I am sure they buy it also from a renowned company ? Anyway yeast would have an influence on the product, while stainless steel shouldn't have an influence at all.--Symposiarch 13:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations Needed?

Does this article need more citations? I can't seem to see any. I'm rather new to editing Wikipedia so I'm not entirely sure, but certain parts of the article seem like generalizations. It is otherwise a very good article. I hope that the talented people who worked on it can fill in the blanks? For example, the line; "As a wine, it is considered almost unanimously by connoisseurs of Champagne as the most prestigious house in Champagne, with the possible exception of Champagne Salon, depending on the individual taster's preferences." It seems like it needs a source. Who said it? Where was it said? What connoisseurs? Etc. It seems like weasel words to me. Again, I'm a newbie, but I'll go ahead and add a citation notation. I also think it needs some more in various places, but I'm a bit unsure where to add them. I hope some more experienced editors can work on the article? -- Dee 09:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

What's disappointing is that claims in the article aren't even linked to specific sources. If I were writing an advert-article for a product, I'd be sure to 'cite' some offline sources in order to give it the veneer of verifiability. Rogerborg (talk) 09:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)