Wikipedia:Peer review/Riesling/archive1

Riesling
This article had a lot of work done to get it to GA quality but has since grown stall in progress. I'd like to get some fresh eyes to take a look at it and pin point some areas that need to be worked on to get it up to FA consideration. Probably my biggest area of concern is the quality of the prose. I appreciate your time. Agne 20:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Great, an article on one of my favorite wines. It's a good so far, but I think it needs a little more work. Here's a few comments.
 * The introduction covers some topics that aren't mentioned in the main text, so in that sense it isn't really an introduction.
 * While reading it I was hoping for a "History" section, but I was reluctant to mention it since the history is already integrated into the "Production regions" sections. Still, the introduction includes information that could be considered a history. So it might be something to consider.
 * "Other regions" should be under the "Production regions" section, rather than being a separate, level 2 section heading.
 * "[7] ," needs to have the reference immediately after the comma.
 * I thing the text beginning with "Three common characteristics..." should begin a separate paragraph since it starts a new topic.
 * Typo: "stablize"
 * In the sentence "In the Late 19th century..." is it appropriate to capitalize the word "Late"?
 * "...Alsatian rieslings can be chaptalized." It might be helpful to include a brief explanation of the word chaptalized in the sentence, rather than requiring the reader to drill down to find out what it means.
 * "...named Johannisberg Riesling to qualify them as..." missing a comma after Riesling.
 * The "North America" section needs more references, especially where opinions are expressed.
 * "...dessert wines-most successfully..." should use a &amp;mdash; instead of a hyphen. Otherwise the reader is left wondering what is meant by a "wines-most". That sentence seems a little awkward anyway, so a re-write might be good.
 * The discussion in the "Other regions" section is decidedly sparse, when compared to the other regions, for example.
 * The "Production" section needs more references.
 * I hope these were somewhat useful. Thanks. &mdash; RJH (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 21:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback! I appreciate it. Agne 22:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)