Talk:Tempranillo/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 23:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

At first glance, this looks like an interesting and well-written article. For what it's worth, I am not a drinker of decent wine. Some thoughts to follow soon. J Milburn (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "Tempranillo enjoyed a renaissance there and throughout the world as a fine wine" Surely, as a grape producing fine wine? An apple is not known as a fine cider.
 * The quotation here is out of context. "Fine wine" is in contrast to "jug wiwne." "Grown early in the 20th century to produce jug wines in California, Tempranillo enjoyed a renaissance there and throughout the world as a fine wine." I've revised it to read "Grown early in the 20th century to produce jug wines in California, toward the end of the 20th century Tempranillo enjoyed a renaissance..."
 * "Tempranillo is consumed both young and after several years of barrel aging" Again
 * "Tempranillo is bottled either young or after several years of barrel aging"
 * Can I ask why you are capitalising all grape names? Is there something buried deep in the MoS?
 * While there is no consensus on common names, WP:FLORA suggests no capitalization. But specific grapes are cultivars, which are capitalized according to WP:FLORA. The examples there are written, "Ulmus × hollandica 'Dampieri'," but a good sampling of fruit articles shows a lot of capitalization without the genus and species:
 * Braeburn, Fuji (apple), Avocado, Roma tomato, San Marzano tomato, Lemon basil, Prunus maritima Beach Plum), McIntosh (apple), Damson (this does not capitalize), Golden Delicious, Bing cherry, Goldfinger banana, Red banana (shows a mix, but predominantly capitalized), Señorita banana.


 * "This is presumably because in many places, like the Valdepeñas region, it was the main indigenous variety and assumed to be a different grape." It's not clear what this means
 * I've been looking more closely at WP:RS since I last reviewed the sources in this article. Looking at it now, I would agree that some of these sources are not adequate, especially this one. This sentence is speculative and adds little to the article.
 * "Ally fallaría ommes las bonas cardeniellas" Why italics?
 * This was probably done originally because Latin phrases are often italicized, as per MOS:FOREIGN. This, however, is a quote and not a phrase like semper fidelis or orbis non sufficit.
 * It would be good if the history section could clarify right at the beginning that this is a grape variety that stretches back into antiquity. I think the lead could also make this much clearer; it currently suggests that it arose in the 20th century
 * More clarity is always better, though there are several references to the Phoenicians. I've added "ancient" to "Tempranillo has been grown on the Iberian peninsula since the time of Phoenician settlements. It is the main grape used in Rioja, and is often referred to as Spain's "noble grape".[2] Grown early in the 20th century to produce...
 * "made Tempranillo-type vines their most important variety, which still make up the majority of grapes in the finest blends." Tempranillo-type vines make up the majority of grapes in the finest blends?
 * Crappy source. I should have nixed the entire sentence in the first place.
 * "The white Tempranillo grape reproduces asexually through the one unique sarmentum and multiplication." Jargon
 * Where is the line between jargon and the scientific description of a biological process? Still, the sentence is quite adequate without "through the one unique sarmentum and multiplication."
 * "Both grapes share identical leaves, clusters, and grape form, as well as the short ripening cycles and sensitivity to pests and diseases" This contradicts what has been said earlier
 * Not only is it a contradiction, the source does not have any information regarding the comparison of ripening season and the sensitivity to disease and pests.
 * "The early ripening cycle makes possible its cultivation in any subzone of the DOC since the entire cycle can be completed even in the zones where ripening occurs later." Again, jargony
 * I can see that. It could also be a little more specific. "Subzone of the DOC" refers to any area of Rioja, but the article should not assume any reader will make that connection. I'll play around with the wording on that.
 * "The white Tempranillo has a medium yield (7500–9000 kilograms per hectare),[13] and medium to high vine vigor. Although it has many clusters, they are small and of medium weight." How does this compare with normal
 * "Medium yield" is qualified. The rest is not. The entire portion does not meet WP:RS. I'll look for better sources.
 * "In one example it was reported to have a titratable acidity of 6.9 g/L." Jargon. How does this compare? How is it relevant?
 * This could use a comment as to why high acidity is good for wine grapes. Good point, though, that it is not compared to regular Tempranillo. And the source is inadequate.
 * "In 2007, White Tempranillo, or Tempranillo Blanco, was authorized in Basque Country, Navarra, and Rioja." To sell? To be produced?
 * Both. I made the change.
 * "Tempranillo wines can be consumed young, but the most expensive ones are aged for several years in oak barrels. The wines are ruby red in colour, with aromas and flavors of berries, plum, tobacco, vanilla, leather and herb." Unreferenced?
 * The first part is a glaring generalization that can apply to any wine in the world. I added a citation to the second part.
 * The "Old world production" section also seems to be unreferenced?
 * "produce fine 100% tempranillos like Encino." Check this reads properly? Also, link Encino?
 * Encino was added by an IP with less than 10 edits. It's likely the name of a winery, put there by someone close to the company. Because of this and other names, I asked on the Wine Project talk page about the appropriateness of specific wineries. The feedback was to leave them out unless they are somehow significant. I never went back to remove them.
 * "Los Cerros de San Juan Vineyards and Winery" Why italics?
 * No need, but it's getting deleted anyway.
 * Does Valdepenas need to be linked? Valdepenas (grape) currently links to this article
 * The synonyms do seem like important information, but they do not look good like that. Have you considered a footnote as a possibility? Also, if the references refer only to the synonyms, are the localities just original research?
 * I doubt they're original research. Better sources are needed. I don't think a footnote would really work. We may as well remove them if we did that. It can be fixed.
 * There are a lot of web sources lacking retrieval dates
 * WP:CITEHOW just says what web citations "typically" include. That doesn't sound like an absolute requirement except for when the publication date is unknown, which some do not have. But, since many of those are crap sources anyway, I'll be pulling a lot of citations.
 * I'm unable to access the reliability of a lot of the sources as I do not speak Spanish, but some of the English ones certainly look questionable.
 * This?
 * This?
 * This?
 * This?
 * This?
 * There are others...

Although the prose is well written and formatted, I'm worried that the weaker citations, as well as some of the poorer sources, are letting this article down. J Milburn (talk) 23:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Since my main review of this article, I have done a lot more work on learning finer points of WP:RS, and I've even started posting responses at the noticeboard. Looking over this, these citations are way below the threshold of reliable sources. Thanks for the very thorough review. Cheers! Encycloshave (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me know when you're ready for another look through. J Milburn (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears that Encycloshave has been absent from Wikipedia for over three weeks, with the last edit on May 19, two days after the most recent edits on this article. Should the review remain active under these circumstances? BlueMoonset (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sourcing problems remain. While the article has certainly benefitted from the removal of some of the lower quality sources, work is still needed before this could be considered ready for GA status. As such, I'm closing the review at this time; hopefully Encycloshave or someone else will be able to give this the few hours' work that it needs and it can be renominated. J Milburn (talk) 09:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)