Jump to content

Talk:Carménère

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 86.14.229.187 (talk) at 22:48, 19 February 2008 (→‎Noble grape?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconWine GA‑class (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Wine, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.WineWikipedia:WikiProject WineTemplate:WikiProject WineWine articles
GAThis article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconFrance GA‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
GAThis article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconChile GA‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Chile, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chile on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChileWikipedia:WikiProject ChileTemplate:WikiProject ChileChile articles
GAThis article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Grape Name

I think it would be best to have the article's name be the grape's proper name Carmenère with the "English" spelling being the redirect, not the otherway around as it is currently. Agne 02:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to comment about suggesting a move. Since no one has commented negatively with your suggestion, I'm going to be bold and do it. --- The Bethling(Talk) 00:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no: it looks like the spelling is actually Carménère [1]. But many websites have Carmenère or spell it with no accents at all. I suppose we should go with the absolutely most correct spelling. Which? Badagnani 04:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Badagnani: Carmenère is fine. At least, that's the name that all Chilean winemakers producing the wine print on their labels, as if by common agreement. I can supply you with plenty of (scanned) bottle labels, if you like. Just write to aka_ef@yahoo.com | Regards, AVM 22:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have changed all of the article's Carmenère to Carménère. 2 reasons - both Spanish and French wikipedias have their title in with the Carménère heading. Since the grape and the grapes name comes from France, it should be Carménère. The biggest producer of Carménère is Chile and Spanish wiki's heading is Carménère. Further, I checked the wineries that produce it in Chile and they have written Carménère. Although some do only use Carmenère and CARMENERE (capitalized and adding no accents), the correct spelling is Carménère. Therefore the article title should be changed and there should be a redirect from Carmenere and Carmenère to Carménère. --Charleenmerced Talk 04:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Charleenmerced[reply]

Picture

  • Does anyone have a picture of Carmenere grapes? Or a way to get one?Charleenmerced Talk 20:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Charleenmerced[reply]
  • Made some changes to the order of the pictures and added one that compares both Merlot and Carmenere. I still think the Merlot one should stay since it gives the reader an idea of how a real merlot grape looks v. Carmenere grape. Also, it shoes the leaves, which are a bit different. It is still nice to compare both side by side. Finally, as to The Casillero del Diablo wine label picture, I put it with the wine producers. I am hoping to get, in the future, samples of some or most of the wine producers and make a scrolling image gallery. ANother user has volunteered to do this.Charleenmerced Talk 06:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Charleenmerced[reply]
I love the side by side illustration but it looks like the image has been tagged for speedy deletion because of the the license tag. I'm curious if there are any GNU or Public Domain version out there, like in the old French ampelography text that have lapse copy right. I'll do some digging. AgneCheese/Wine 08:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! I really didn't want to lose that. It is such a neat illustration. I think the absence of a free version coupled with the owner's permission should qualify for Fair Use. However, I would definitely keep an eye on it. I've had picture "mysteriously" disappear on me due to licensing issues before. AgneCheese/Wine 19:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now the only picture that I think we really need is one of the wine in the glass so that the reader can get an idea of the color of the wine. Where would be a good place to put such a picture?AgneCheese/Wine 19:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced your label pic with one which includes a glass - except it's such a dark wine, it's almost impossible to see the colour! I do have a method of photographing wines for colour which I didn't have time for on this occasion, but maybe I can find another bottle... or maybe two... --mikaul 12:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last week of Wine Improvement Drive

At the end of the week, we'll submit for GA status and see what get. If you've had any good Carmenere lately, be sure to swing by the talk page on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wine/Newsletter/Wine Improvement Drive and give your thoughts and recommendation for you fellow Wine Project members. AgneCheese/Wine 20:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a thorough look at the structure of the article and changed quite a few things. Amongst others:
  • switched the "Carmenère & Merlot" and "Growth in Chile" paras around to help things 'flow' a little better
  • re-jigged a few paras here and there
  • fixed typos, grammar, etc
  • fixed links
  • added a new image for Casillero del Diablo

Hope you agree it reads a little better & you like the pic - *very* nice wine, thanks for the tip!

Good luck with the submission. --mikaul 12:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am sooooo done. Honestly, there is nothing else to add. Maybe a few (very few) things here and there, but nothing major. I think this article is pretty much done!!!! Can someone please check the Characteristics section to see whether it is ok? It may be a little off on the POV. --Charleenmerced Talk 04:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Charleenmerced[reply]

GA ??

First congratulations on producing what is turning out to be a very nice article. I do, however, have a couple of comments:

  • I think the GA submission is premature. One of the requirements is stability, and there's no way the article can pass that criterion. There are new things being added faster than I can keep up. There's a whole page of changes just today.
  • Regarding the long list of wineries that produce Carmenère. While it may be a fine piece of research, I think it detracts from the structure and flow of the article, making it cumbersome, and I wonder if it should even be there.

I think this will settle down into a nice GA article soon, but not yet. -- With best regards Steve.Moulding 23:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Steve, I agree in part. Regarding the constant adding of info - all my fault, I just found all this info that I had to add and I also restructured the page a bit. Regarding the wineries - well, the thing is that when I started I didn't know there were sooo many considering that Carmenere was thought to be extinct. I think some wineries should be there cuz some are the major producers of the grape (e.g. Casillero del Diablo). So, I guess I'll take votes. Remove or keep the wineries? I will def take out whether it is reserve or estate or etc. As a side note, I think these are pretty much all the wineries that produce Carmenere, a pretty exhaustive list, save 4-5 I may have missed. Charleenmerced Talk 00:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Charleenmerced[reply]

As a past GA reviewer, there is no need for stability concerns. Charleen's changes have been adding some interesting tidbits and stylistic tweaking. The stability concern in WP:WIAGA is primarily aimed at drastic changes, with substantial deletion of materials and edit warring. Further improvements and tweaks (especially during a GA review) are actually expected and even encouraged. More importantly, these are organic improvements and there is no present edit warring. Now in regards to the winery list, I am not a fan of them mostly for the reasons I espouse in WP:WINEGUIDE. I think at their core, a list of winery is inherently POV due to the fact that no matter how exhaustive you try to be, there will some wineries included and some not-which can be seen as endorsements or rejection of these Wineries by the article. If the winery has done something particularly notable and unique (like the first to do this or the largest to do) then that would merit inclusion. Any type of general listing should be avoided. AgneCheese/Wine 05:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • ok, list removed. Final copyedit needed. I would do it but I have read this thing so much that I just can't do it anymore nor would I be as efficient. I tink some tweaking may be needed in the opening paragraph (very little) jsut to make it flow better. The characs also need revising and re-discovering the grape. --Charleenmerced Talk 06:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Charleenmerced[reply]
  • I tried really hard to get the 'flow' going again and it was stalling, basically (I think) because of the Chilean section. I realise this is more than a tweak but I've removed the section dedicated to Chile and merged that info into the relevant parts and it seems (to me) to read much better, without diminishing the influence of the Chilean growers. There are a few extra phrases here and there but otherwise the content is much the same as before. --mikaul 17:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Passed

This article has passed the GA noms. The following are bot-generated suggestions for improvement.

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.[?]
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 9 additive terms, a bit too much.
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Tarret 22:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broken reference link

Citation (6) needs repairing and retitling: the correct link is http://www.winepros.org/wine101/grape_profiles/carmenere.htm (the current link brings up an Error 404 page. Also, as owner-creator of the site, I would prefer the title be "Professional Friends of Wine / Carmenet" rather than "winepros.org" since there is some history of confusion with the Australian commercial site "winepros.COM". Thank you. Jim LaMar 19:01, 5 May 2007

No article should cite itself

Reference [5] simply cites the Spanish version of the same article (Wikipedia en Español: Carménère). The Spanish version of the article makes no citations at all.

A citation may not even be necessary just to say that the wine is medium bodied.

GA Sweeps (Pass)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noble grape?

Hi, this goes out to any wine experts editing this page. The carménère grape is stated in this article to be one of the six "noble grapes", however, that article does not list it as such, instead it lists the white grapes Sauvignon Blanc, Riesling, and Chardonnay, and the red grapes Pinot Noir, Cabernet Sauvignon, and Merlot. This seems to be a contradiction, which one is right? Thanks, 86.14.229.187 (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I'm still confused. The noble grapes article makes no mention of this grape, is there a separate list of "noble grapes of Bordeaux", or is the other article wrong? The fact that "6 noble grapes" is mentioned in both articles would lead one to believe that those 6 grapes are more or less universally agreed on, but that doesn't seem to be the case? Was the carménère grape replaced with another when it was thought lost? 86.14.229.187 (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carménère&oldid=192667879"