Jump to content

Talk:Beaujolais

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Gamay Accuracy

[edit]

This article says that gamay is typically low acid - yet the linked Gamay article says that Gamay is typically high acid. I believe that low acid is wrong, but am not certain. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable can resolve this discrepancy.

Comment

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

* 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)[reply]
Taco325i - it's BO, not BOOO.

Beaujolais as slang

[edit]

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)[reply]

Beaujolais and Bob Dylan

[edit]

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

Clean-Up

[edit]

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.

Pronunciation

[edit]

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

Renaming

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Cru Grand Cru

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Good article nomination on hold

[edit]

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)[reply]

Notes

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. AgneCheese/Wine 18:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

GA/R Request for discussion

[edit]

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. AgneCheese/Wine 19:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beaujolais. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beaujolais&oldid=1246948525"