User talk:Agne27: Difference between revisions

Archives

Archive 1 (Through 10/1/06) Archive 2 (Through 11/25/06) Archive 3 (Through 2/14/07) Archive 4 (Through 4/1/07) Archive 5 (Through 9/20/07) Archive 6 (Through 12/15/07) Archive 7 (Through 4/14/08)

Welcome Wiki-Winos! Please direct your responses to my sub-page User talk:Agne27/Wiki-Winos and I will be sure to include them in a future Wine Project Newsletter.

If you came here with comments about the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements), all you every need to know about how I might reply back can be found at User:Agne27/City, State convention.

On 14 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Wine Advocate, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work creating articles on Germany's wine regions. The information was sorely needed and you've done a great job. — AjaxSmack 04:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you. Most of the credit should go to User:Tomas e but I see that you already dropped him a note. :) Agne^Cheese/^Wine 21:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi don't know if that has an article yet but I thought you might be interested in a new page I patrolled List of Quebec wineries. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm there is no Quebec wine wine article yet. It is certainly on the list (After a British Columbia wine which is a tad more prominent in the Canadian wine industry). Though overall, I wonder about the notability and usefulness of this list. If wiki links were added they would all undoubtedly be red. It just seems like a directory style listing. Admittedly, I don't know if I would be the best to put a prod or AfD on here since I've already made my opinions known on WP:WINEGUIDE. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 21:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well nobody knows better than you!!! Do what ever you think is best, perhaps if you did create a Quebec wine page the list could be merged and perhaps only the most notable wines included perhaps ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I will try to gather material for a potential Quebec wine article, but at this point, I think it would be easier to gather material for a more general Alcoholic beverages of Quebec including the whole deal of what is produced there (beers, ciders, wines etc.). Naturally, Quebec will never be a big producer of wine because of the climate, but this does not proscribe small productions of very good wines, even red ones. This is what we have seen for the past 10 years or so. -- Mathieugp (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I can't speak about Quebec beers, ciders and spirits, I do know that there is enough reliable sources to make at least a start class article on Quebec wine (Like Ontario, I know that they have a sizable icewine industry and have done a bit with cool climate hybrids). While they might not be big, Quebec wine is certainly interesting. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 17:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on the article Wines of Calabria- a region of good wines little known outside of Calabria itself. At best, some people have tried the Ciro', so it's great to find a well written article that expands on other varieties. Please keep up the great work- I am looking forward to reading other articles you might have started about lesser known wine regions. Dionix (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you. Eventually we'll get to nearly all Italian wine regions, it is just a work in progress. Wines of Sicily is high on the to do list. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 21:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Agne. I've found these little château ID cards from the 30s, and have inserted two of them so far, Image:Ausone 1931 chateau card.JPG, Image:Cantemerle 1931 chateau card.JPG but I'm not sure about the most appropriate tags they ought to have. Even though they're at least 76 years old, are they maybe not old enough to be public domain? I opted for fair use logo.. You think this works or would you recommend a different approach? And do you they're appropriate for the articles? MURGH ^disc. 18:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well they are certainly interesting and worth having in the article. Unfortunately, I'm not well versed enough in all the copyright technicalities. I think your fair use idea is probably a good route but you may want to ask at Wikipedia:Image copyright help desk to get, hopefully, a more knowledgeable answer. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 21:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks, I'll leave a question there and leave it at just a few of them for now. MURGH ^disc. 21:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 17 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Château Cantemerle, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 10:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 17 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article New South Wales wine, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I boldly moved out one of the Bxd AOCs I've been tinkering with, Haut-Médoc AOC, thinking it's relatively close to the format of info and refs I'll be able to put out. Please take a look, since I'm sure it can be structured better, and I'd love pointers for the forthcoming ones. Not sure this one's an obvious candidate for hooks and a DYK  ;^) MURGH ^disc. 22:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'm going through the B class wine articles at the moment but I'll take a look sometime tonight. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 22:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Update I took a look at the article, added a small history blurb with a DYK hook. I like the layout and idea that you are going with on this sub AOCs. I really like the table with the classified estates and Cru Bourgeois. Looks very sharp. I think as you get out to the more obscure AOCs, it probably would be best to make one major article with mentioning of the smaller ones and redirect them to that article. If you have enough content to make more than a stub, then there should probably be an article. But if it is only going to be a stub, best to consolidate it. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 03:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Nice image and history insert. Yes, I think I worked out a hiearchy (for the most obviously small ones anyway) and play with how "mediums" such as Listrac and Moulis do on their own. Cheers, MURGH ^disc. 04:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 18 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Shirazi wine, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 11:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we'll see if that doesn't bring in a few attempts at distortion to the article. :-) A strong and to some perhaps controversial, but I hope solidly referenced statement. Tomas e (talk) 11:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We will need to keep an eye on it to prevent any nationalism get in the way of encyclopedic integrity. It is a great article, well grounded in good sources. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 17:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've commented on the B/GA proposals on the project talk. But don't consider those my newsletter recommendations, I want to take some time to review all the B-class ones and refine my picks. I'll get back to you with them asap (not like last time). Thanks Agne, VanTucky 20:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! Agne^Cheese/^Wine 20:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to let you know that I finished my interview. With literally hours to spare. Let me know if there's anything else, or if I should cover some points in more or less detail. It was a fun bit of text to do: thanks for inviting me to do it! --ESP (talk) 01:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you! Agne^Cheese/^Wine 03:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a moment, I went and did this odd article-list-thing, since I think it is sort of encyclopedic and ought to be freely available, I'm not sure where it fits, not even sure what the best title would be. You have a suggestion for that? For now I just have it userfied: User:Murgh/Alexis Lichine's classification of Bordeaux wine.. MURGH ^disc. 03:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that is a toughie. I agree that it is very encyclopedic and Lichine's alternative classification is probably the most notable alt-classification there is. However I don't know if the "non-wine geeky" community of Wikipedia will grasp that and I do fret the possibility of a tough AfD battle if it was posted as is. My suggestion (and I hate to recommend more work since you've already put a lot into this article) is to reshape the article as Criticism of the Bordeaux wine classification (or something similar) and include Lichine's alternative as a sub section with maybe a reference (though not a full table) to some of the other notable wine writer's list (Parker's, Broadbent and I think Peppercorn has one). This article could function as a splinter from the main 1855 classification article. Lord knows there is enough reliable sources about the criticisms of the 1855 list out there to make an article that is AfD-proof. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 03:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think a criticism article is certainly warranted by abundant RS, definitely a juicy one to compile and construct, but (from the slice of sources I've been by) such an article would span the full 150 years and warrant some hugeness.. *ugh* Anyway, an article passing by AL's Bdxclass ought to lead on to a Main article: Alexis.. and considering the sources I do have (although a bit heavy-relying on Prial) I think it merits a WP-place. It would surprise me enormously if consensus found it shy of WP:N in an AFD. And, I think shockingly, the actual list is nowhere to be found on internet, so I'm gonna follow my gut and zeal and go public. At any rate if it should end in a bad AFD I can always userfy and continue like you suggest.

BTW I have Peppercorn's published ranking/musings (as of 1991 anyway), and he tackles it quite differently, like using the word "perhaps" a lot, and keeps it short, so that could easily become a section in the Peppercorn article. This one of course doesn't belong in Alexis Lichine.  ;^) MURGH ^disc. 12:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the result of Afd campaign would be "no consensus", so why not give it a try? --Doopdoop (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 20 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Haut-Médoc (AOC), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wine Project Newsletter! Issue XI - February 21st, 2008

Still working on Toscana article? I'll get some books out of the library and try to help! I want to get it to B and then GA. --Charleenmerced ^Talk 07:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh feel free. I have a couple other big articles on my plate (Like a revision of the Cabernet Sauvignon article). I am more than happy to let your work your magic like with Carmenere and Tempranillo. I'll keep and eye and try to clarify things when I can. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 07:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, that would be very helpful because I do not know a lot about Toscana, just the basics. --Charleenmerced ^Talk 08:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my family is from Tuscany and I still go there every year in Summer, so if I can be of any help just ask, and I'll do my best :) --BodegasAmbite (talk) 09:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to know a lot about wine, so I'd like to ask a question. Wine, made from grape, is highly versatile in flavor. Is it possible to use any other fruits to produce a drink with such a wide range of flavor, or is it something only grape can do? I am aware of fruit wines but I got an impression that they are very limited in versatility. --BorgQueen (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nice words. :) The Grape article is sorely lacking a type of "physiology"/components section to speak to this (on a long list of to-dos) but grapes are unique from other fruits in their ability to produce all these different flavors in wine. While there are elements (namely how it expresses terroir) that are not fully understood there are some identifiable components (found mostly in grape skins with a few in the sugars) that are large contributors to a wine's potential flavors--namely phenols, methoxypyrazines, monoterpenes and mercaptans. The pyrazine "green bell" flavor compound is one, geraniol is responsible for some floral aromas in Riesling and Gerties, megastigmatrienone produces some tobacco and spice notes in red wines, etc. While some of these elements do exist in other fruits/vegetables, the combinations and amount present in wine grapes as well how they interact during the maceration and fermentation process are unique. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 13:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see a link to the VP discussion, so if you wanted me to chime I'd be happy to do it. The Cat project is more hit and miss, but the firm consensus currently at the Dog project is that galleries in dog breeds are a strict no-no, except where there is great variation in type within a breed and there isn't enough space in the text to house all the images. I personally removed many dog and cat galleries, and I can count the number of dog galleries left on one hand. Besides, excess images in one class of article is not an excuse for excess elsewhere. VanTucky 20:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw the link. Again, as a result of my edits and the ensuing talk consensus (it was rather uncontroversial), dog articles should only have galleries in very special cases. VanTucky 20:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate the info and your time. :) Agne^Cheese/^Wine 23:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 24 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Château Pape Clément, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congratulations and keep up the good work! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alexis Lichine's classification of Bordeaux wine, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 04:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Henri Enjalbert, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would Mr. Tabbers like to be in my Catbook, a frivolous user-space endeavor?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I'm sure he would. :) How cute. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 01:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done.[1]--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 26 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cabernet Sauvignon, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On February 28, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pierre Galet, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Well done, well done again. Have we ever had 100 DYKs on one specific topic? Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 06:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmm.....I don't know. But I'll sure try. :) Agne^Cheese/^Wine 17:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we're closer than I thought. Only a couple more to go. :) Agne^Cheese/^Wine 01:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Agne. I appreciate your enthusiasm and interest in this project, and I'm going to definitely raise this option when I go to the Columbia Free Culture Meeting tonight. Though I'm not sure if an alcohol topic would be OK with the university, when most of the students will probably be under 21. And, I'm a little skeptical of your numbers above, because people tend to be interested in specific topics in the Humanities (authors, books, artistic movements), rather than the academic discipline itself. But your willingness to help with sources, etc., definitely will count in the Wine Project's favor.--Pharos (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for the reply. :) Agne^Cheese/^Wine 03:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 5 - March 2008 February issue | April issue Project News There are currently 3,647 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 185 unreviewed articles. Out of 237 total nominations, 42 are on hold, and 10 are under review. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance! The oldest unreviewed articles are: Ian Browne (cyclist), Tony Marchant, Reginald fitz Jocelin, Annie Russell, Brodie Croyle, and Jimmy Moore. The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (39 articles), Theatre, film, and drama (34 articles), Transport (23 articles), Music (21 articles), Politics and government (18 articles), Culture and society (13 articles), Places (13 articles), and World history (12 articles). The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 13 articles up for re-review. If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated! GA Sweeps Update Two members joined the sweeps team this month. They are Jwanders and jackyd101. Jwanders swept Physics sub-category quickly and is now sweeping "Astronomy and astrophysics". Meanwhile, jackyd101 is sweeping "Armies, military units and legal issues". During February, 66 Good Articles were reviewed. Including those articles that were under GAR or on hold, 33 were kept as GA, 21 delisted, 17 currently on hold or at GAR, and 1 was exempted as they are now Featured Articles. Reviewer of the Month Blnguyen is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for February, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Blnguyen is from South Australia and has been editing Wikipedia since 2005. He was also the reviewer for the month of December 2007, so this marks the second time that he has been GAN's Top Reviewer for the Month. Congratulations to our GAN Reviewer of the Month for February! Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of January include: Blnguyen (talk · contribs) David Fuchs (talk · contribs) Derek.cashman (talk · contribs) Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs) Calbear22 (talk · contribs) Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) Jackturner3 (talk · contribs) TimVickers (talk · contribs) VanTucky (talk · contribs) Wrad (talk · contribs) Member News There are now 185 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 9 new members that joined during the month of February: Bibliomaniac15 (talk · contribs) Canyouhearmenow (talk · contribs) Chrisisinchrist (talk · contribs) Ed! (talk · contribs) Juliancolton (talk · contribs) Kakofonous (talk · contribs) LOTRrules (talk · contribs) Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) Nousernamesleft (talk · contribs) Did You Know... ...that the shortest timespan for a GA to be listed and subsequently delisted is 8 minutes? (The article is Project Chanology and currently listed on WP:GAR) ...that the current nominations system started on March 10, 2006? ...that in May 2006, number of GA surpassed number of FA? This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all! One GA Requirement - The Lead Section By Geometry guy In this issue, we will focus on one of the requirements for good articles: a good article article should follow Wikipedia's guideline on lead sections. So what does this guideline say, why does it say what it does, and how can good article reviewers help? The lead section is particularly important, because for many readers, it is the only part of the article which they will read. For instance, they may have come to the article by following a wikilink in another article simply to obtain a quick overview before they continue reading the original article. They may only read the first paragraph, or even the first sentence. On the other hand, one of the joys of Wikipedia is the way that it embodies the endlessly branching tree of knowledge; if a lead is well written, it may encourage even such a reader to read on and learn something new. This is reflected in the terminology: "lead" is a word taken from journalism, where it recognized that many readers will only read the beginning of a newspaper article, and so it is important to convey the key points first, before going into detail. Note that "lead", in this sense, is pronounced as in "leading question" and is sometimes spelled as "lede" by journalists to distinguish it from lead, the metal, which was once very important in typesetting. Wikipedia supports both spellings. Wikipedia:Lead section is written with all this in mind, and describes two different roles for the lead: first, it should introduce the topic; second it should summarize the article. This is not always as easy as it seems; indeed, it is almost impossible to write a good lead if the article itself does not cover the topic well. It has a side benefit that an article which satisfies this guideline is probably also broad: if the lead is both a good introduction and a summary, then the article probably covers the main points. The good article process is often the first place in which an article is judged against this criterion, yet many current good articles may not meet it. A common fault is that the lead is purely an introduction, while the rest of the article contains other information, which should be summarized in the lead, but isn't. So, how can reviewers help to improve this? One approach is to read the rest of the article, and not the lead, first. Make a note of the significant points discussed in the article. There is usually at least one important issue in each section. Then, go back to the lead and ask the following questions: Does the first sentence of the lead define the topic, as described in the article? Is the most important information mentioned in the first paragraph? Is the lead a suitable length for the article? The lead guideline recommends 2–4 paragraphs depending on the article length, but judgment is more important than counting. Are each of the significant topics that you noted mentioned in the lead? If the answer to each of these questions is "yes", then the article probably meets the guideline. If not, you may be able to fix it yourself by summarizing the article. If you can't, then it suggests that there are not only problems with the lead, but also the rest of the article. That is the beauty of Wikipedia:Lead section. Finally, there isn't universal agreement on whether the lead should contain inline citations. As long as the material in the lead is developed and cited elsewhere in the article, then inline citation is not required. There are exceptions, the most significant being quotations and controversial material about living persons. Good luck helping more articles meet this important criterion! From the Editors Well, this is somewhat GA-related but at the same time not totally GA-related. However, I think this is important. Thanks to everyone who supported me at my 2nd RfA. It passed unanimously at 79 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral. As many are impressed by my work in Good Articles processes, I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone giving me a very enjoyable time at GA. There are 2 people that I want to explicitly say thank you to. They are Nehrams2020 and Epbr123. They patiently taught me how to do GA reviews properly in summer 2007. I couldn't achieve better without them. Now that I have the mop and the bucket, some of my time will be working on reducing Commons image backlog. Nevertheless, you will still see me once in a while in matters related to GA. OhanaUnited Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. Dr. Cash Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor, Distributor) OhanaUnited (GA Sweeps and Did You Know correspondent) Geometry guy (News Correspondent) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Frank Butler (American football) (talk | history | start review) • Hal Hinte (talk | history | start review) • Wuert Engelmann (talk | history | start review) • Zud Schammel (talk | history | start review) • Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma (talk | history | start review) Reassessment: Bidni • Ottawa Senators (original) • British Airways • Siege of Szigetvár • Robbie Fowler • Battle of Plataea • Battle of the Yarmuk • Key Biscayne • Mary McLeod Bethune • Task forces: Project quality • Sweeps • GAN Backlog Drives • GA Cup WikiProject Good articles newsletter (last updated January 2013) Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations list | edit

Hi Agne, could you please take a look at List of tributaries of Larrys Creek, specifically its expansion here diff? I was wondering if it had been expanded 5x but had no idea how to figure that based on text vs. total size (it is not 5x based on file size). I have a nice hook to nominate it for DYK already thought up, but figured I would check with you first. Thanks in advance for your help, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 06:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's close enough that I think with a strong hook it should be feature. On Feb 19th, before you started your expansion it had 1,184 bytes of prose. Today it has 5,052 bytes. Not quite a 5x expansion but it is clear that a lot of work has gone into the revision. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 17:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much - I can add a few more sentences on the geology and mountains which should get it even closer to a true 5x. I was not sure about counting at all and appreicate your work on my behalf. The hook I thought of was DYK... that Larrys Creek in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania has 42 named tributaries in its watershed, including one named "Little Dog Run"?. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would catch my attention. You normally don't think of something named a "creek" having so many tributaries. With 42, it would sound like a major river. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 03:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, it is a creek I am very fond of and which always manages to surprise me when I research it further than I have before. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Your Wineness. How are you? It is His Baldness here. Somebody just started Tsinandali wine but I don't know how correct it is. Perhaps you could give it a clean sometime thanks. Also remember to add those canadian wines!! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 11:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! That does need some work. Admittedly Georgian wines are a weak area of mine but I'll give it a go. As for the Canadian wines, they're still on the to-do list, after I work my way through the remaining Top-importance wine articles that are still at start class. However, I will be visit several wine regions in British Columbia this summer (and hopefully Quebec/Niagara in the fall) so I should be able to get some pictures to go with those articles. :) Agne^Cheese/^Wine 17:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 6 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Château Beau-Séjour-Bécot, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 11:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 7 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cocks & Féret, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Daniel Case (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Berlin Wine Tastings, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berlin Wine Tastings. Thank you. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 11:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 21 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stuart Pigott, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 18:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mustum, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Daniel Case (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on Beaujolais. However, there is one important issue still at hand. According to the GA criteria, direct quotations must be, cited directly after the punctuation each time they appear. One citation in a paragraph for two quotations (even if it's from the same source) doesn't cut it. Quotes are the only thing that always requires immediate attribution through a citation. If you want to include several quotes in a single sentence, one cite will do. But if you have multiple separate sentences each with a quote, you have to cite each sentence. It's not negotiable. VanTucky 18:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Van Tucky, I appreciate your time. But looking at the GA criteria, it says that (2b) "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" which I have done. Every shred of information in that article is cited and attributable to an inline citation. I do not see "redundancy" as a characteristic of a good article which would be the case if the same cite is added to one line, followed by the next to two to three lines that are also sourced by the same footnote. As a compromise, I would be willing to add a "hidden text" pointing out that the source for the quote can be found on the next line. Would that be acceptable? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]