User talk:Agne27/Archive 3
A rather problematic GA review
[edit]I was wondering if you might have the time to comment on the Agripinna opera GA review, the discussion is proving quite....contentious, and I think more editors might be able to help form a real supermajority one way or another. I have the feeling that a no consensus result isn't going to bode well, as there's quite a bit of an argument about the prose quality criteria, and some insults going around. Homestarmy 18:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Sure, I'll take a look. Agne 05:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Château de Courson
[edit]I see you have marked the talk page for Château de Courson with a {{wine}} tag, and I wondered why? I don't believe there is a wine associated with this estate. SiGarb | Talk 00:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I might have been mistaken with some of the French language google hits. If you feel that there is no need for the tag you are free to remove it. Agne 05:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
FAC vote
[edit]Hello Agne. Since you have contributed on the peer review Joseph W. Tkach, would you be so kind as to vote on the FAC?? Thanks. --RelHistBuff 16:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- The article was promoted to FA on 3 December with a 4-0 result. Many thanks for your comments and support! I hope to bring more articles to FAC soon. --RelHistBuff 10:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
My barnstar
[edit]Thanks Agne, I wasn’t expecting that! —Ian Spackman 12:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Battle of Little Bighorn
[edit]I am working to renew the GA status of Battle of Little Bighorn by adding in references and footnotes to this article, as well as rewriting portions of it for better flow and added detail of importance. More work to come, but please let me know what else I need to go to get this back to its old status. Thanks! Scott Mingus 12:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Welcome!
[edit] Hi, Agne27, welcome to WikiProject LGBT Studies! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles of interest to the LGBT community. A couple of points that may be helpful:
If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me or any other experience editor, and we will be happy to help you. And once again - Welcome! |
Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you so much!
[edit]Hi Agne27,
Thank you so much for putting the GA re-review notices on many talk pages. I processed your contribs page and came up with a list that I believe includes mostly current GAs that you warned (perhaps except a few I just delisted).
When i was looking at your contribs, I also noticed that you took a rather excessive amount of grief for your public service. So double thanks:
|
The Editor's Barnstar | |
| For paying a debt you did not owe, in the name of WP:V. Ling.Nut 19:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC) |
Paper trail
[edit]You have said repeatedly that citations are a paper trail, so that readers can trust our edits, even without doing the research themselves. Np, its more like the Diebold "recount" facility, that will print the same result as election day, all over again - of some value, but not much. Consider this edit, which reversed the meaning of the sentence, but left the footnote intact; that sort of thing happens all the time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm quite aware that edits like that happen, I've caught a few myself. I caught them by being intrigued at the topic and following the footnote to find more information and there finding the inaccuracy as well as more useful info on the subject. If there wasn't the benefit of the footnote, there wouldn't be any trail to follow and chances are that the misinformation would have sat there longer. Agne 09:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
hi
[edit]I see there's much discussion taking place on my talk page. I put a little stub of a start of a reply on User talk:Pmanderson. I can't debate too much. Sorry. --Ling.Nut 05:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Admittedly, the stress and fuss of the holidays have sapped my vigor for debate for the time being as well. I still care about the subject matter but I'm not sure how involved I'll be till after the New Year. Agne 09:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Someone trying to hijack WikiProject Gender Studies...
[edit]An anonymous user has edited Wikipedia:WikiProject_Gender_Studies and has edited its aims so that it reads (the following quote is taken from the talk page):
* Correct articles where the term 'gender' is overused, used incorrectly, or used pejoratively to pander to (what Christina Hoff-Sommers, Wendy McElroy and other more moderate feminists call) a "gender-feminist" POV.
- Correct articles where the term "gender" is used (without reference to NPOV dictionaries and other NPOV sources) to replace the term 'sex' as a ploy to pander to "gender"-feminist POV. Correct the usages so that the proper definition is used without regard to UNTESTED and often invalid 'gender theories', so distinctions can be made between 'gender' and 'sex', and so that the usage reflects some sort of NPOV take on a highly loaded term. Just because some widely criticized academic fields have used totalitarian tactics to force 'gender' and censor the usage of 'sex', in US humanities programs is no indication of the validity of this politically-loaded term. Consult NPOV sources such as dictionaries, opponents of "gender"-feminists and NPOV mass media sources to balance 'gender' POV with 'sex' POV.
- Correct articles where the term 'gender' is being used gynocentrically as a front for 'oppression'-feminist political, legal or cultural power plays. For example, in feminism (Status) there is no mention that for the male 'gender', military mortality is 98% compared to 2% for the female 'gender' (in Iraq)...but other forms of far less serious female "gender" oppression are implicated (covertly and most disengenously) as having something to do with the gender "oppression" of women. This kind of blatant, gynocentric "gender" bias is no less POV than the other forms listed here.
Said user has further edited the talk page suggesting that (the following quote is taken from the talk page):
I suspect this project was created to pander to the points of view of misandric, gender-ginning, 'patriarchal oppression' feminists (please see Women's studies, misandry and feminism ) who use the term 'gender' as a cunning, covert, and blatantly gynocentric weapon of war. Many other more moderate feminists and non-feminists have challenged these blatantly gynocentric, and often misandric "gender feminist" ideologies. I insist on a non-sexist, non-'genderist', non-reverse sexist project...otherwise this project is just the usual type of cunning totalitarian tactic we see so much in other politically correct channels. To revert the above content just because none of the orginal authors of this project page like it is a POV stunt to have ones cake and eat it too. I am going to reinsert the content. I insist that before it is reverted again good NPOV reasons be provided. My aim here is some kind of GENUINE non-sexist, non-reverse sexist, and non-'genderist' NPOV...as may be shown well in Sexism (drop in editor) 00:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
The idea that the term gender (that is, the idea that at least some of the differences between the roles of men and women in society) is socially constructed, yet 'sex' (i.e. that any differences between men and women are essentially biological), at the very least, looks like misogyny|misoginist]] POV bias of the worst kind. Any assistance arguing against the point would be greatly appreciated.
Cheers, - AmishThrasher 08:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Sabrage - Champagne
[edit]A quick check on Google shows some 27000 hits for sabrage the top link was http://www.confreriedusabredor.co.uk/sabrage/sabrage.html
The Champagne club (www.champagneclub.org) says the following:
The time honoured art of "Sabrage" or "Le Sabrage" or "Sabre à Champagne" (Opening a bottle with a sabre) is the most traditional way to open a bottle of Champagne. Dating back to Napoleonic days it involves using a sword to cleanly slice the end & cork off a bottle. The technique does not specifically involve extracting the cork, but actually removing the whole top of the bottle. The art is still practiced today in public as well as traditional organisations including the Military.
I hope this helps. Frank van Mierlo 05:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
That is certainly interesting info and the sites look like they have the potential to pass WP:RS. However, the section still needs to be re-written to remove the "How to"-ish tone. Agne 07:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I did move the information back as I think it should be there around this time of the year. I will try to improve the article further sometime next year. In the meantime, have fun and best wishes for the new year. If you have the time, do try to open a bottle of champagne with a sabre tomorrow at midnight. A large heavy kitchem knife will do if a sabre is out of reach. :) Frank van Mierlo 17:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Heh, I don't trust myself with knives :p But I will enjoy a nice Krug tomorrow. I am content to leave the article as is till you get a chance to revisit it. Hope you have a great New Years! Agne 00:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I did my research. Neither the Shiraz grape (syrah) article nor google show "sirac wine" or "sirac grape" or "sirac sort" or "sirac variety" or "sirac label". Mukadderat 02:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Well google is not omniscience. I provided a ref that is very verifiable and from an exceptionally reliable source. Agne 02:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
The article is a work in progress and the exclusion of any one bit of information is not a fault or a black mark on the info itself. It is a quick fix though since I already have the reference. Agne 02:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Please allow me agree with you: Yes, a reference in disabmig page is silly. But also please allow me to disagree with you: Disambig page are for navigation between wikipedia articles. You cannot say it is a synonym of something, if the corresponding article does not say so. You write "needs verefication". Did you read the book you quoted? What exactly is to be verified? You must not add nonverified info into the article. You must post the quiestion in talk:Shiraz grape. You say "reliable soure"; which is it? Mukadderat 02:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- I have a stronng suspicion this is a misunderstanding: a confusion with similarly sounding winery of Pierre Sirac, which has no relation to syrah. Mukadderat 02:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Well the Syrah article issue has been fixed. Unfortunately the state of the majority of Wikipedia's articles on grapes is a poor one and there is quite a bit of information lacking in the bulk of them. A small issue that I've noticed is the amount of red links among the various articles where a synonym was used with no redirect to the primary name. So on a weekend I set about to "fix" that with setting up redirect on the alternative names and synonyms. I consider Jancis Robinson to be an extremely reliable source and the particular book I references is standard text for Master Sommelier certification. If you have a source that can demonstrate Robinson to be wrong, then I will certainly bow out of this one. While she is certainly good, she is not infallible. Agne 02:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
LGBT WikiProject Newsletter
[edit]
 Issue II - January 1, 2007 | |
|
Happy New Year to all our members!
| |
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please drop me a line. | |
Thank you
[edit]Thank you very much for your statement at WP:ANI: "...The only "obvious" is CyberAnth's hardline stance on WP:V and citing sources. I respect Johntex's approach engage CyberAnth on those grounds and the differing views of those policies. I am appalled when bad faith assumptions are putting words and motivations into an editor's mouth..."
- I appreciate it. I hope we all can reach a good consensus for a compromise that will drive us towards better referencing without too much deletion of savable content. Best, Johntex\talk 01:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Well it is true that your conduct and approach was very different from that of a few other editors. Though CA did get snippy with you, I didn't see you attacking his good faith but rather his approach and interpretation of WP policies. That is quite fair and respectable. I disagree with CA on a lot of key things and I don't grant a wholesome condoning of his methods or the scale that he went but I was quite offended at how he was treated on AN/I. Things should have stayed on the level that you were trying to take the discussion towards with WP:V being the heart of the matter. It's unfortunate that it didn't. But then, I suppose that is why WP:AN/I has the reputation it does.
But I should be thanking you for staying on a level playing field in this issue and in particular for opening the discussion on the WP:V. I think we share several mutual goals in this regard and I see fertile room for constructive compromise. Regards, Agne 07:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Agne. I have put Indonesia up as a GAC again. It's been there for some weeks now. Is that normal? A huge amount of effort has been put into its improvement since you reviewed it for GAC in September [1]. I believe it meets the criteria and goes beyond your recommendations for improvement (which were very helpful!). THe article (especially the history section) is much tighter and says more with less - although we chopped out a lot of waffle. It's really a complete re-write (or five). Are you able to review yourself or hurry it along some how? Or is such a wait normal. Any questions, please ask. Thanks and regards Merbabu 11:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Well....I'm personally taking a break from GA stuff after the hoopla over in-citations and the Good Article Criteria. Unfortunately, I don't think I'm the only reviewer taking such a break and for such a reason. The wait looks to be because of the backlog and the current shortage of Reviewers. I apologize for it but I don't know if I'm keen to doing GA stuff at the moment. Agne 01:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Grateful Dead
[edit]You de-listed the Grateful Dead article from Good Article status on October 23rd. On the talk page you explained why in some detail, which is very helpful. But, looking at the top of the talk page, it says the article's been rated GA-Class. If it's been de-listed from GA, shouldn't it be rated B?
Feel free to reply here, or just update the Grateful Dead talk page if that's appropriate. I'm somewhat of a newbie, and I'm not too familiar with the article grading process. It looks like anyone can grade an article, with disputes to be resolved by the project, which in this case is Biography. Anyway, no biggie, I'm just interested in the article. Thanks. -- Mudwater 19:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
The grading is done by the individual Wiki-Projects (which use a somewhat subjective scale). It could be that the project still feels it is "GA-class". Agne 01:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Okay. Thanks. -- Mudwater 01:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
In case you're interested, a Wikipedian named Badbilltucker changed the rating on the article from GA to B today. -- Mudwater 01:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Please see the discussion (you can get there via the ugly tag that has been slapped on the front of it. 6 hours work, possibly for nothing. I am massively pissed off. Jeffpw 15:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it will be kept. The delete reasoning is non-existent and AfD regulars tend to appreciate hard work revisions. Agne 15:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
New Wine Discussion (by Agne) : Input Requested
[edit](Agne...I plan to send this to all Project members. Let me know if ok, or you want any changes. Thanks. Regards – Steve.Moulding 17:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC))
Dear Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wine member:
There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wine#Vintage_Infos_.28part_II.29 that has become
Please add your comments/input to the talk page Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_is_not_a_wine_guide.
- Thanks! Regards – Steve.Moulding 17:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- That looks fine. Agne 19:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks...all project members have been contacted. Hopefully we can wrap up the discussion over the next week. Regards – Steve.Moulding 20:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
LGBT WikiProject Newsletter
[edit]|
Issue III - February 1, 2007 | |
|
Announcement: If someone requests help or feedback on an article, please try your hardest to help them out if you are able. Thank you.
| |
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please drop me a line. | |
Re:
[edit]What I said wasn't a personal attack - I was merely saying the fact the editor was Catholic may be a motive for their actions. I described the situation as I saw it, which I think is the best policy. However, thanks for your advice on my page. LuciferMorgan 12:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- I, personally, don't think you cross the line into a personal attack and could tell that you were commenting on the bias and not the person. However, your wording did leave it open to being interpreted the wrong way and that is what I was encouraging you to reconsider. Regardless though, Eedo Bee reaction was quite inappropriate. Agne 12:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- I agree it was open to interpretation, so attempted to clarify my stance at ANI, where the user was reported. LuciferMorgan 13:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Notability of Wineries
[edit]Re: Comment at Notability Companies
In California, where I live, wineries are more prolific than body shops, though some people think that the use of one product can lead to demand for the other. To the point, why should wineries receive notablility greater than any other company? On the other hand, wine is a topic of broad interest and WP can provide a meaningful service by providing verifiable information, without being overly restrictive on the notabillity criteria.
I've become a bit involved in discussions etc. about notability because I was unhappy with the deletion of some of my articles about sailing and sailboats. Like wine this is a nitch industry where small comapnies can make large contributions, but there is an inherent implication of non-notability in small, and a backlash against commerial enterprises at WP, due to the flood of spam advertising etc.
Please let me know how I can help with wines.
Cheers!
Kevin --Kevin Murray 22:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Howdy Kevin! I've started a section in the essay WP:WINEGUIDE about notability. Please chim in with your thoughts. Agne 22:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
What's your point?
[edit]Agne, I notified those who indicated that they shared my philosophy on my talk page. That's not even in violation of WP:Canvassing, which itself states that canvassing is a controversial activity (not forbidden). If you honestly think there is some kind of inappropriate behavior on my part, then report me to arbitration. Otherwise, please stop being disruptive. Thanks. --Serge 23:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Serge, I've encouraged others in the past to back off on putting you up for RfC because I saw improvement in your behavior and a focus to work on the convention page instead of the page move merry go-round. But your actions now are clearly crossing the line into disruption, especially on a page move that really has no chance of succeeding. That is clearly disruptive and I encourage you to reconsider your conduct before other editors would even need to think about arbitration. Agne 23:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Agne, I've noticed and appreciated your defense of me in the past. Thank you. And I've been warned about canvassing before, at which time I read up on it. So this time I was careful to make sure I followed the rules, only contacting those who had indicated a shared philosophy on my own talk page. It is my understanding that there is nothing wrong with letting such users know about such a survey. Also, given that Chicago and Philadelphia were successfully moved, I don't see why you think this page "really has no chance of succeeding". The question of whether what I did is problematic or disruptive is controversial at worst. --Serge 00:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, Chicago and Philadelphia were moved at a time that not many participants were aware of the convention issues at WP:NC:CITY. If those moves were proposed today, there is a slim chance they would have passed. Canvassing is indeed controversial and I am personally aware of it due to issues with Wikiprojects like what going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies. I think there is a clear difference between posting an open friendly notice on the City, State page or Village Pump pinpointing select supporters. There is certainly a conflict there. AgneCheese/Wine 01:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Sig sampling
[edit]Go ahead. But do make sure you give it a good slosh beforehand, and really savour the taste before you spit it back out. :-) Chris cheese whine 23:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Mondovino
[edit]Miranda12 21:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Dear Agne27,
Would you please be kind enough to restore the word comedy before Mondovino which you edited recently. Please find following a small sample of articles (and an interview with the director) which clearly show the film is a comedy. Thank you. Miranda12
ROLLING STONE (Peter Travers, March 24th, 2005) If Sideways made you curious about vino, this fierce, funny and challenging doc opens up a world worth debating.
HOLLYWOOD REPORTER, Gregg Kilday April 1, 2005
The current case in point is Jonathan Nossiter's "Mondovino," a sort of around-the-world-of-winemaking in 135 minutes. ...........And his portrait of a wine world, in which idiosyncratic grape growers are threatened by global companies, already has the wine establishment up in arms....But the filmmaker, who considers himself knowledgeable about wine without being a stuffy connoisseur, insists: "To me, the film is a populist film. It takes a subject that is often treated seriously and pretentiously and treats it lightheartedly."
BAY AREA GUARDIAN, April 1st, 2005 Mondovino Jonathan Nossiter's sprawling, epic documentary provides an engrossing and often humorous look at the global wine industry, visiting centuries-old European vineyards as well as upstart California ventures.
SAN FRANCISCO WEEKLY, March 30th, 2005 BY MELISSA LEVINE feedback@sfweekly.com The Grapes of Mirth. Jonathan Nossiter's wine documentary is subversive, funny, and humane.
PREMIERE.COM'S REVIEW (posted 3/31/05)
Shot, cut and directed by sometime sommelier Jonathan Nossiter (Sunday, Signs & Wonders), this wonderfully witty docu-essay—which nabs its title from the Mondo Cane shockumentary series of the '60s and '70s—uses the milieu of the wine-making industry to illustrate the damaging effects (namely, the homogenization of tastes) brought about by globalization.
CITY PAGES Artists of the Year - Volume 26 - Issue 1308 - Cover Story - December 28, 2005 URL: www.citypages.com/databank/26/1308/article13990.asp By Georgia Brown Jonathan Nossiter's Mondovino raised the hackles of not a few people. Frisky, merry, nosy--a lens with the curiosity of a puppy. And not deferential, no--not respectful at all........Nossiter is not in awe. Some accuse him of tricking his hosts--those who bestow precious time, trusting the flattery (e.g., heavy editing) that has always followed in the past. So, yes, in this sense they were tricked. For who was to expect a real reporter? Who knew, for that matter, that there were real reporters left in the world?....Besides being fearless, Nossiter is a true democrat--in the way that Dickens or Balzac were democrats on the page. He treats the wealthy and powerful as if they are on a par with laborers in the vines. He seems convinced that all of us, high and low, are mere characters--frail, foible-plagued players, foolish and dignified in turn, inhabiting for our brief moments the vast human comedy.
Howdy Miranda! I appreciate the sourced and I agree that the film is quite funny but it is also quite serious and is officially classified as a documentary. That is how it was entered into the Cannes film festival and others. It would be disingenuous to classify it as a comedy. AgneCheese/Wine 07:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
settlement naming comment
[edit]Thank you. I was concerned that I may have contributed to the emotional outbursts instead of the rational content. --Scott Davis Talk 13:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Charles Heidsieck, was selected for DYK!
[edit]
|
On February 7, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Charles Heidsieck, 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. |
Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 21:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln
[edit]Well done on the rewrite. I still feel the the paragraph on Larry Kramer's claims that he has uncovered new sources, yet Kramer has yet to publish this material is bias. However, what you have accomplished is a great. --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 03:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
|
This is just a quick, automated note to let you know that there is an election being conducted over the next 7 days for the position of "Coordinator" for the LGBT WikiProject. Your participation is requested. – SatyrTN (talk · contribs) |
Great work!
[edit]Those edits you made to Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln were brilliant - you almost single-handedly made that article NPOV and factual! Great work, if only more Wikipedians could do this sort of thing :-) Ta bu shi da yu 03:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I appreciate the kind words. AgneCheese/Wine 04:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Gay?
[edit]The article is not suggesting he is gay? Sure it is. I wanted to make clear that the article is a controversy. That is fair. I also wanted to make clear that his sexuality is not disputed, but the notion is. This is not clear in its current intro. The article itself that is disputed. This needs to be made clear to the reader. Its the article itself that is a controversy. See the talk page if you dont think the article is a controversy. Rather than tag the article indefinitly, state the fact its a controversial article not topic. The topic may or may not be, but the article is 100% controversial and has been. There have been 2 attempts to delete the article, as I'm sure you know. There will be a third, and a growing numbers of editors are unhappy with the article. --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 05:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Let's move this discussion to the article's talk page. AgneCheese/Wine 05:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Judgment of Paris
[edit]Andrew Dalby dropped his objections http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Judgement_of_Paris#Something_else What's the plan? – Regards Steve.Moulding 15:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Well we can move the Judgment of Paris (mythology) page without any admin assistance. Then we would need to create the Judgment of Paris (disambiguation) page with all the text and put in a WP:RM for the disambig page to an admin to move that to the unambiguated Judgment of Paris. AgneCheese/Wine 19:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the work here. Not quite sure how you dab'd all those pages so quickly :-)...I was about to start manually changing links one by one. – Regards Steve.Moulding 02:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Heh, I did them one by one too :p Well the mythology one. Technically, the wine tasting ones are still redirecting via the old title but all the double redirects are fixed. Considering the old title is a valid redirect, I don't think there is a rush to fix those. AgneCheese/Wine 08:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
re: Interested in working on some JoP articles? Sure...how can I help? What specifically can I do? – Steve.Moulding 20:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Well really it kinda what you have already been doing-working on creating and expanding our wine articles. I would just focus more keenly on the articles relating to the JoP and ensuring that there are relevant wiki-links to the JoP article. Double check that all relevant wineries & chateaux have an article and a link, relevant Judges and wine personalities, the affect on other wine competition etc. You may even want to work on the appellations and wine regions, especially those that had a significant economic impact as a result of the JoP. AgneCheese/Wine 20:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)