Talk:Oregon wine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Notable Wineries
I listed a few of the wines that I personally believe are notable but feel free to edit. I think ideally the list (for an article of this scope) should be around 5 wineries--especially when a concrete guideline on what makes a Winery notable hasn't been established. Agne 10:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- It's OK for a list of wineries to include those which aren't notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. That said, I'd limit it to vineyards which meet any of the following:
- Significant production (how much)?
- Major awards or positive press from notable wine critics
- Have their own AVA (I know, this is marketing, but if the BATF thinks a wine is notable, I won't argue...)
In a list, I'm not opposed to being exhaustive rather than exclusive. The main thing is to ensure that all entries and be verified from independent sources; a criterion which somebody growing grapes in their backyard garden and selling bottles of the stuff at the local farmer's market might not be able to satisfy. (And Oregon has plenty of those, let me tell you...)
--EngineerScotty 17:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] OSU experimental vineyard
I don't know if this would fit into the article, but Woodhall Vineyard is an experimental vineyard of Oregon State University near Alpine, Oregon. The link is currently broken, but here is the cached version of the history of the vineyard: [1] [2]. Katr67 18:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Good article nomination - Passed
Overall, a thorough, well-written article. The only complaint I can muster is that it's a bit long, probably because it's a very broad topic. If anyone can find an efficient way to chop this article into a few different articles, it may increase readability, and allow readers to more quickly find the information they're interested in.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Snottywong (talk • contribs)
[edit] GA status
Currently the GA folks are going through and reviewing all GA articles, and I don't think this would pass again. Looking at the reviewed version, it should not have passed to begin with. It's currently better, but has some issues with peacock terms and a few citations needed. I've moved some sections around to try and get rid of white space issues caused by pictures and expanded the lead, as well as re-worked some of the pictures location/caption. Hopefully this looks right on other's computers too. Aboutmovies 08:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)