Talk:Chaptalization/GA1

GA Review (Nov 2008)[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

OVERALL: Nice article, that still needs some work to be GA.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
See comments below. Overall though needs some clarity, citations tidied, and use of tables where appropriate.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Held, then failed

Comments:

Lead section

~~Needs ref on regulations in 1907.~~
~~Possibly give an example or two of regions it's legal in, i.e. those that product grapes with low sugar content.~~
~~Refs/~~examples for the prohibition in various countries would be helpful, though not necessary.

History section

"Roman winemakers were able to identify the benefits of added sense of body or mouthfeel"

Suggestions, add: [due to the added sugar/honey, etc]. Overall needs clarification.

"At the turn of the twentieth century, the process became controversial in the French wine industry with vignerons in the Languedoc protesting the production of "artificial wines" that flooded the French wine market and drove down prices. In June 1907, huge demonstrations broke out across the Languedoc with over 900,000 protesters demanding that the government take action to protect their livelihood."

Here quotes are used, but nothing is cited.
Also, a ref about these riots would is preferred.

Process variations

A ref for the use of corn syrup is warranted due to its main use in the US. Either a ref, or qualify the statement to say where/who would use corn syrup, i.e. the US.

Re-hydration and acidification: describe whether they're used together, separately, and maybe the benefits of one process over the other.

Legality

~~I strongly recommend making the zone A, B and C information into a table.~~
- ~~We can try that, althought the bullet list is short and concise, so I'm unsure of the value added of a table? ~Amatulić (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)~~ OK, I converted it to a table. It does seem to be an improvement. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed a chunk of paragraph which followed the zone information as it seemed to be more information than was needed and confused the article. If you believe it was essential to the article you may of course re-add, but definitely ensure you've drafted it to fit well into the article.
- I re-incorporated the deleted material into the table. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It looks good now, thank you. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Countries and Regions list

~~I'd like to see this information presented as a table as well; though not required.~~
- Tables aren't useful or practical for column-oriented lists, especially when the number of rows in each column can vary as they are updated. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~References~~

~~See WP:CITE#HOW to get the citations in order please.~~

Overall: I think the article would pass if these relatively easy to fix issues were addressed. I'll come back in a week to re-review, and I'll monitor this page for comments/questions. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a general note about referencing[edit]

Per WP:LEAD, an item doesn't needed to have a footnote if it is already sourced elsewhere in the article. All information about the 1907 riots is already completely sourced to Phillips' History of wine (currently footnote #6). The corn syrup use is referenced by the Wine Spectator article by Daniel Sogg (currently footnote #3). I think those were the only referencing issues from the review. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 08:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the comment on citations needing tidying up. They all use the citation templates on WP:CIT for consistency. What more is needed in terms of "tidying"? ~Amatulić (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see, at minimum the required fields used, e.g. for a web cite use URL and title. Accessdates and publication dates are also preferred, but not required (though a good article is meant to be a standard above the minimum). For example, the EU regulations have no dates at all. Also, for electronic sources use dates in ISO format YEAR-MO-DAY. Essentially by tidying I meant ensure the minimum is there (found in bold at WP:CITE), and ensure that the date formatting is not only correct, but consistent. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who cleaned up the cites a couple months back, I can tell you that all fields that can be filled in were filled in, especially URL and title for web sites. All citations have dates, where dates are available, and all dates are formatted consistently as YYYY-MM-DD except where the publication itself specifies only the year, or only the month and year. Please check this again. If your browser or user settings are causing dates to appear inconsistently, that isn't a problem for this article, as long as they are correct in the citation template.

I honestly don't see where you're seeing a problem. Might it be those cites that have just an author and a page? They conform to standard citation format, where a previous citation is completely referenced, just with a different page number.

Please provide a specific example of where you see a problem, and suggest how to fix it, and I'll gladly do so. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woops, I did find one misformatted citation (#2) that must have snuck in after my cleanup a couple months back. Now fixed. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was the ref that I specifically spoke of above. If the other issues are resolved we should be able to pass this. I choose this article to review not because I know anything about wine production, but because I found it interesting and a good read! Nja247 (talk • contribs)

Re-review soon[edit]

This is a notice that I will start my review again shortly (Monday 1 December). I see that at least one of the things I highlighted for clarification has not been addressed. I re-read the relevant bit in the article and I still believe there's a need for clarification. Thus anyone who contributes to this article may wish to address the issues I raised for this article to meet and pass GA review criteria. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, failed[edit]

You may wish to resubmit once all issues raised in the review have been addressed. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 07:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aargh. Vacation prevented me from cleaning it up in time. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]