Talk:Chaptalization

Skeptical
I am skeptical as to whether ethanol is *needed* to preserve wine, as it is in a stable state when it is bottled and free of oxygen, just like beer is.

Ethanol has a low viscosity, and thus it would lower the viscosity of wine. This, to me, would be a change in body, but definitely not an increase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.109.168.52 (talk • contribs)


 * Ethanol isn't needed, but it does act as a preservative. There are plenty of infections that can taint wine that don't require much if any oxygen.  The additional ethanol helps make the wine a more hostile environment for bacteria.


 * Body isn't simply related to the viscosity of the wine, it's an abstract concept related to mouthfeel. Lots of things come into play, including several other of the side-products of fermentation (glycerol for one) . Increasing the alcohol content of a wine tends to make it feel fuller in the mouth of a drinker, although how much is pretty subjective.  ---  The Bethling (Talk) 18:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed the bit about viscosity, as that has less to do with body than the flavors. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Good Article Review (2007)
Hereby I would like to share with you my review of this article as a Good Article Nominee ;) Let me begin with stating that I really have to appreciate all the effort that was put into creating this really enjoyable, informative and well-sourced article. However, there are still some flaws that do not allow me to pass it as a Good Article. I am afraid some of the shortcomings are rather substantial, but I hope the active editors of this article will improve it in no time, so that it could be renominated soon.

The usual review roundup according to WIAGA:


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

The issues I have identified are: (note from : I am striking out those comments that have been addressed or have become obsolete due to changes)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * 1) It is stable.
 * 2) It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * 1) Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * 1) I have never heard of the process and I guess quite many people did not, so I am not really sure whether there is a "popular belief" here (lead section, first paragraph) - I guess it wouldn't hurt just to state that the process does not make the wine sweeter (which one might wonder about anyway on reading what it consists in). Moreover - if the sugar does not make the wine sweeter, how in the world could it be tasted? I guess this statement is quite redundant.
 * 2) The second paragraph of the lead section does not summarize the article, but would rather fit in the section of legality (which could use an introduction of why is that an issue). Additionaly, I believe that there is no need to mention Ms MacNeil specifically. Last but not least, as a person not really into vine, I have no idea what "flabbiness" might consist in.
 * 3) History section, first paragraph - what is "body and mouth feel"? A wikilink would come in handy...
 * 4) I believe there is no need to keep the last sentence in the section separate from the preceding paragraph.
 * 5) The "Process" section is too brief in discussing the actual process. I can figure out what is actually meant, but I guess a tad more introduction, even if bordering repetition of what has already been said above, might make sense.
 * 6) The discussion of processes alternative or similar to chaptalization could be done in a separate section, though I believe a "See also" section would be even more appropriate.
 * 7) Why no links to beet sugar and corn syrup? While we are at it - why no link to chemist?
 * 8) The "Legality" section contains a discussion of why the process is employed, which would belong elsewhere.
 * 9) It would be interesting to know how exactly is the amount of alcohol generated by chaptalization determined.
 * 10) The bullet-point list of regions permitting/not permitting chaptalization is not overly handsome, I was wondering whether it could be converted into a map. I understand that the regions not mentioned are do not have particularly strong wine industry, but still could some patterns concerning the legality of the process be determined (e.g. whether the process is generally permitted except for the regions that stricly forbid it?)
 * I converted it to a 2-column list. A map isn't practical because some regions would be too small to see. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * All concerns described above have now been addressed. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I also have several reservations concerning the language employed. e.g.: Again, not being a native speaker, I am not sure what to make of it, but I believe it might be advisable for a native speaker, and avid proofreader, to thoroughly browse the article.
 * 1) In the first paragraph of the lead section, the article says that the process was "named for" Mr Chaptal. Not being a native speaker I cannot be sure of that, but I believe the correct preposition would be "(named) after".
 * 2) Second paragraph in the history section - I believe adding "(discovered) that" might help readers not to lose track of the actual sense of the sentence. In the same sentence "under ripened" or perhaps "underripened" or "unripened"? There is also a case of "over ripening" in the "Process" section.
 * 3) Fourth paragraph in this section - why not simply "the process became controversial"?
 * 4) Does Champagne (sparkling wine) really have to be spelt with a capital "C" invariably?

Kind regards, PrinceGloria 21:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your very thoughtful and thorough review. I will take your notes into consideration and work on the areas that you address and hopefully be able to renominate it for a passing grade. :) AgneCheese/Wine 07:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Good luck and have fun with that - it seems like you do, which is a great thing! Keep them coming, as I said I don't know much about wine and reading those articles is very enjoyable. I will not review the one on Cabernet Sauvignon though, because I believe it is better to maintain some diversity in reviewing. PrinceGloria 08:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Just as a little thing, it's true that you usually name things 'after' someone, but 'named for' is also perfectly OK. Tends to be only used as an adjective, and I guess it's a bit more sophisticated, more 'literary' English. FlagSteward 14:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * All concerns described above have now been addressed. In the process I discovered a couple places that I am sure are true claims, but need citations. Anyone, please help if you can. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Content problems with the lead
I see problems with each of the two lead paragraphs.

The first paragraph states "Contrary to popular belief, this process does not make the wine sweeter but only artificially inflates the alcohol content. Additionally, the sugar in chaptalized wine cannot be tasted.[1]" I have trouble believing the cited reference actually makes this claim. If you add too much sugar, the yeast won't ferment all of it into alcohol before fermentation stops. Florida wines (according to my experience in questioning winemakers there) are often heavily chaptalized to make the resulting wine sweeter than it normally would be.

The second paragraph has two problems. First, it mentions a critic's opinion there and nowhere else; those sentences should be moved into the following section that discusses controversy (and perhaps controversy should be given a subsection). Second the paragraph says: "This effect is then masked with the addition of sugar to balance the high acidity and "flabbiness" in the wine.[1]" The way the sentence is written, it sounds like it's equating high acidity with flabbiness, but high acidity is the opposite of flabbiness. Maybe it should be "high acidity OR flabbiness"? The cited reference can't be checked online, but if anyone has it, please look it up and check what it actually says regarding acidity and flabbiness. -Amatulic 23:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the second criticism. I'm removing the sentence as it is nonsensical. OliAtlason (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I also agree with #2, but as to the #1, if sugar is added that is not fermented, it's not really chaptalization, it's plain sweetening - or dosage as it is called in champagne production. But just as the peer reviewer had pointed out, it's uncertain if there really is a "popular belief" about it. Tomas e (talk) 07:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't believe it's been over a year since I left my criticism. I've worked a bit on the article, cleaning up citation formatting, expanding the lead, adding a paragraph about U.S. regulations, locating dead links, reformatting the list of regions into 2 columns, and adding "citation needed" tags where needed. There is still work to be done. My comment about the critic's opinion in the lead still stands.
 * By the way, regarding my comment about Florida: they add sugar regardless of whether their target flavor is sweet. Their grapes simply lack sufficient sugar. The southeast U.S. taste in wines seem to tend toward sweeter ones, so they add extra sugar beyond what's needed for proper fermentation. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Champagne
The process section says "Champagne producers sometimes employ chaptalization," but the caption of the champagne photo in the legality section section claims "Chaptalization is a(?) standard in the production of champagne." These two claims seem to be at odds with one another, though I know little about wine production so I Could be wrong. My intuition is that the caption is wrong, and is actually referring to dosage. Even if it is right, I'm pretty sure it should say simply "standard" not "a standard." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.19.93.179 (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chaptalization. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120207123959/http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/euwineregs.pdf to http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/euwineregs.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)