Talk:Zinfandel/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Use of semicolon splices seems a bit high, and there are a variety of minor issues. I see you've already asked for peer review--I expect that will be very beneficial before you take this to FA.
 * Minor issues should be all cleaned up now. 3 semicolons remain in the whole article, and they are necessary. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * This is a showstopper for GA. There is a lot of unreferenced speculation and supposition which appear to be original research or synthesis.  I've tagged several such areas.
 * I have attempted to fix places I have noticed you tagged, either by finding a reference or by rewriting the text so that the reference is no longer needed. If you find more places that need work, please tag them. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Why is Croatia mentioned so prominently in so many places throughout the article? I'm far from a domain expert, but the article really reads like a Croation nationalist has had a serious part in editing it.  Combine and confine the Croatian references to one relevant section, please.
 * Um, Croatia happens to be the origin of this grape. The discovery if its origin was fairly significant news among wine enthusiasts. I'm at a loss to figure out how all mentions of Croatia could possibly be confined to one section. That's where the grape came from. Suggestions? ~Amatulić (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The article recapitulates the story of the discovery more or less as it came to pass, but perhaps the story could be told more coherently in terms of current knowledge. --Una Smith (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a suggestion below that sounded sensible to me in Hisory, below. I'm also willing to admit that my impression can be incorrect, as it seems that multiple other editors agree that the emphasis is warranted.  Jclemens (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I started making minor edits to clean this up, but I'll hold off rearranging things cronologically until I can figure out a way that makes sense. Looking at what's written, it seems that multiple events happen in parallel, making a chronological history difficult. The history subsections do appear more or less chronologically, however.
 * Use dates in the subsection titles, then explain the significant historical events. --Una Smith (talk) 01:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * See Croatian comments, above
 * Well, excluding the genetic origins section, the weight given to Croatia seems appropriate. Proportional weighting is also given to Italy and California. The entire genetic origins section focuses on Croatia, but the purpose is to describe a significant research discovery, which was was big news when it came out, so it seems appropriate to have a section about it. I can try to make it more concise if needed. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * ON HOLD for a week for improvements. Jclemens (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, as of today, the week has passed, and the article has been improved continuously to address all issues that have come up. As of this writing, all issues and tags have been addressed. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ON HOLD for a week for improvements. Jclemens (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, as of today, the week has passed, and the article has been improved continuously to address all issues that have come up. As of this writing, all issues and tags have been addressed. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

History
Re the GA review above, the focus on Croatia is appropriate due to the probable origin of this varietal there. However, the story is told in a rather disorganized manner. I recommend that the History section be reorganized, to make it strictly chronological. Make its subheadings temporal. This is a global encyclopedia; most readers won't know or care to learn the dates of the American Prohibition. So, say when. --Una Smith (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that sounds perfectly fine, too. Jclemens (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's impossible to make it "strictly" chronological because events in different regions overlap. I have been copyediting the History subsections, and added dates to the headings. I hope that's sufficient. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That helps. --Una Smith (talk) 21:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Given that the Croatian and Italian names redirect here, this article still has too little information on the history of this grape in those countries. --Una Smith (talk) 21:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect page titles shouldn't determine the weight given to article content. The weighting should reflect the sources available. The names are merely synonyms.
 * There simply isn't anything recorded about the history of the grape in Croatia and Italy; in either place the grape wasn't considered significant or newsworthy until the UC Davis research team discovered the genetic equivalence between Zinfandel, Primitivo, and Crljenak Kaštelanski. Even the Croatian sources focus on that research and not the history in their own country, which suggests the historical details aren't available. What is known about the history in those countries is already in the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I can accept there may be little published info about Crljenak Kaštelanski (when did that name originate?), but how can that be true about Primitivo? --Una Smith (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Good job
Passing per the improvements. It's improved noticeably since I first looked at it, and the editors who've recently collaborated to improve it are to be commended. Jclemens (talk) 05:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm pleased with the way it turned out. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)