Thank you! I have settled down a bit due to the backlog. Once that is worked out, I'll be back to cranking them out. :) Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 18:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, I have a self-nom entry ( William Rulofson) in the January 15 section, which I naturally could not verify myself. Would you mind taking care of it? Thanks. howcheng { chat} 00:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Oh sure. :) Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 00:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Oh, I'm sorry about that. I was under the impression that once the suggestion is favorably reviewed, the editor can transfer the nomination to the next update and remove it from the talk page. I did not realize that it rather be done by an independent editor. My apologies. This is my first DYK suggestion and hence the confusion. Thanks for pointing it out! With best regards, Mspraveen ( talk) 05:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply

No problem. I figured it was a good faith mistake. Like I said, it is always better to err on the side of transparency. Again, thanks for contributing to DYK. We really appreciate your efforts. :) Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 05:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Added some information with references. Cheers, CopperKettle ( talk) 17:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I think I have corrected the objection to this DYK. Can you please check it? Thanks Billy Hathorn ( talk) 01:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello. Looking at the article, it is still under the 2000 at 1805 characters. However, you did add a ref for the hook so I will note that. Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 02:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry, we seem to have got off on the wrong foot. I can see you have been putting in a lot of effort in review the DYK candidates (not to mention the piles of articles you have written mentioned above). I am just a bit concerned that the process seems to be getting a little too bureaucratic. -- One pound ( talk) 01:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I understand and I do encourage you to bring up your concerns on the DYK page. It is the collaborative effort of all participating effort that will improve DYK and the articles featured by it. I do have strong feelings about in-line cites and I did let those feelings color my response. I hope you accept my apology as I accept yours. :) Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 01:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Of course. I suspect we will have to agree to disagree about inline citations and the utility of a bibliography - compare Wikipedia:When to cite, for example. -- One pound ( talk) 01:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Agree. I have a feeling that discussion on cites will be one of the big themes popping up throughout 2008. Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 01:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply

My figures don't match yours. For Texas Tower (lighthouse), for instance, if I copy your text at [1] to Microsoft Word, I get 2778 characters. The editing history for 03:22 says 2797 characters, which must be including other things, like maybe the title, and invisible data used only by the software. Your figure usually matches the editing history figure, but in this case you said 2987 characters, although you correctly concluded it's too short. Also, I don't think other Did You Know reviewers are removing the reference numbers throughout the article, even though the rules say "text". Also, I couldn't find what version of the text you were using. The version linked above says "six Texas tower lights" which occurs only in versions dated January 15 and before, but your version also includes a paragraph about "lightships" which occurs only in versions dated January 17 and after. That is, your version of the article must have been a combination of different historical versions of the article, because no one historical version matches. Art LaPella ( talk) 06:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I did mistype. I meant to do the 2797 from the history. I don't think the article history includes any "invisible data" since when you include a single character it correctly notes it as one byte. Unfortunately the "interpretation" of what counts or doesn't seems to change almost daily which is why I sincerely wish the project would adopt a simple, straightforward article history scale. Oh the headaches it would save. :p As for which version I compared, the first was based on the latest version before the five day period-in this case the 21:24, January 11, 2008 version. The item was submitted Jan 17th so this was six days out. My *personal* preference would have been to use the lower June 26th count but with editors seeming to be "sticklers" for these character count, I erred on the conservative side. The after version I used was 11:48, January 17, 2008. Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 06:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply

After some experimenting on your page, I tracked down the "invisible data" to paragraph breaks - Wikipedia history counts 2 bytes more for a paragraph break than Word does. Oh well. I tend to agree that we should count the whole article and be done with it - the counter-argument has been that a short article could be padded with things like extra categories, but a counter-counter argument would be that categories are as necessary to a good article as anything else, or we wouldn't use them. Also, text can be padded too. It really can. Like right here for instance. Yup, this is really, really padded. Isn't it padded? I think this is padded. It's padded with descriptions of how padded it is. The after version you used wasn't the same as the 11:48, January 17, 2008 version; at the end of the first paragraph, your "after" version says "A total of six" towers, but the 11:48, January 17, 2008 version says "Five other" towers. Thus I concluded that your version must have been created by combining parts of different versions. Art LaPella ( talk) 07:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply

LOL (re: padding) quite true. Hmm....you're right again. I must have had browser issues. I'll take another look. Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 23:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey there. I'm currently trying to rescue an article about a widely praised cult champagne from deletion. Can you have a look at the article if and when you have time? I'm going to remove the promo-sounding stuff, but I don't really know how to write an article about champagne and was hoping you could give me suggestions. I've got to try a bottle of Salon sometime....-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 09:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Alrighty, I convinced the admin to undelete the article, and I did a modest rewrite and referenced it to the extent I could. It's still lacking that Agne27 DYK-worthy flair. I'm going to get a few hours of sleep. Let me know what you think.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 11:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply

One more thing.... while rewriting the article I noticed Delamotte, Laurent-Perrier and Karen MacNeil are all redlinked. It looks like you project wine people have your work cut out for you, especially if you like Champagne. But perhaps I can start one or more of those articles; I may just turn out to be a productive editor someday. Probably not, though  ;-).-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 11:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Update: I went ahead and created the Delamotte article (one of my favorites). I just stumbled across WP:NOTWINE, and I agree with the principles you outlined; however, I feel I may have violated the standards in that essay by including quotes from Karen MacNeil and Robert Parker, praising Salon and Delamotte champagnes. Perhaps the reputation sections [2] [3] I created should be removed.... on the other hand, I feel reputation of a wine should be discussed--with reliable sources, of course, especially if prestige is one of the most notable aspects of the wine (which is definitely the case with Champagne Salon), but perhaps the way I went about it was wrong. I'd love to know what you think; I'm new at this.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 20:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I'll take a look at them, later tonight. Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 23:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Update I did some fleshing out of Champagne Salon but I don't think we can get it up to DYK standards because unfortunately we need to expand it five fold beyond the 2,572 bytes that the "spammy" version by Hartley1967. Even thought it has been expanded five fold from your first "clean version" of 539 bytes, with a bit of backlog I don't think we can slide it by. We still have a couple days to see if we can add more but my resources are drying up. Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 12:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Could you explain this technicality to me? I don't know much about the DYK process. If someone creates an article that's in great shape on the first iteration (not the case here, of course), it still needs to be quintupled in size before it can be considered eligible? Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying?

DYK-worthiness aside, I truly appreciate all the additional content and references you've found. I really love the work you do around here.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 13:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Well...as I mention to Bellweather in the section below, the DYK rules are far from being a beacon of clarity. The criteria simply states that it must be expanded five fold within a five day period or be a new article that has over 2000 characters within five days of its creation. Even though this article was deleted and then "reborn" it still falls into the "existing" rather than new category. There is a little gray area in regards to what counts as "expansion" that I ran into with the Chardonnay article. When I first approached it (much like how you first approached Champagne Salon), it had tons of OR and POV content. I removed it and then proceeded to expand it 7x with new content. From my perspective, the amount of new content should be the scale but some DYK regulars felt that the expansion scale should be judged on the article size that included the OR and POV which would have only made the expansion 3x. Its a similar situation here with Champagne Salon. If you go with the article content that we actually expanded on, we did more than 5x. If you go with the original "spammy" content, we're far short. But it is still fun to work on. :) Thank you for the nice words. Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 13:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• AH! I just realized that this was a second recreation from an article that was speedy deleted in October so I can see why you were referring to it as a new article. Actually make that third recreation. It was also deleted in July and then recreated. Sheesh. :p Maybe this time it will stay around. But back to DYK, I suppose we could slip it in on that technicality because in a sense it is a new article. But deleted/recreated articles are met with some skepticism. Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 13:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply

(Edit conflict). Thanks, Agne. I was just about to ask you when this article was truly considered "created" but I think you just answered my question. The first, first, first version was actually from March of 2007. Would it have helped if I had not fought the speedy deletion but had recreated an inoffensive version of this article myself a day or two later? Seriously, the DYK inclusion is not that important to me; I'd just like to know a bit more about how these things operate.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 13:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The article history is the confusing part because at first glance it looks like an existing article. Again, you could probably point out the history and make a fair case. If you created an article at Salon (Champagne) or something with no history, it wouldn't be a problem. Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 13:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Cool. Given that reality, I'd expect them to show some lenience. Thanks again for your tutelage.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 13:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply

How is Bedford right? Before the major expansion I undertook, the article didn't even qualify for DYK. It was far too short. After the expansion (done on January 19, and placed there per the rules on such expansions), it far exceeds the minimum length, is well-referenced, and has several beautiful pictures that I worked with their owner (a Flickr member) to obtain. How does it possibly qualify as a Jan 16, when it was an illegit nom on that day? It wasn't legit until the 19th. -- Bellwether ^B _C 07:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply

It's really a minor point but you do have 5 days from when an article is created to qualify it for DYK. The article was created on the 16th and even though it was prematurely nominated, it is still technically a Jan 16th article because it did reach the point of qualify by Jan 21st. It really doesn't matter which of the 5 days between the 16th-21st that most of the work was done. Like I said before, it doesn't matter much. It is still going to get featured. The only tangible benefit is that if it was listed on the 16th it would be featured a day or two earlier then it would be listed on the 19th. Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 07:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Am I just misunderstanding the "expansion" portion of the rules then? I was under the impression that if a major expansion was undertaken, that the clock started at that point. I apologize for misapprehending the rules. If you'd be willing to clean up the mess I made by nomming it as a 19 January nom, I'd appreciate it. -- Bellwether ^B _C 08:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply

No problem. The DYK rules have never been a beacon of clarity.:p The "expansion" criteria is really meant for older articles like stubs that have been around. If you did your major expansion on the 22nd, then you would list it on that day. But in practice, you rarely see "objections" based on which day it is listed. As for clean up, I'm just going to go ahead and add it to the next update. Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 08:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Which did you add to the queu, if you don't mind me asking? -- Bellwether ^B _C 08:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• I added your alt hook about the novel setting. I wanted to avoid the slightly move POV sounding hook about it being an "embarrassment". Plus the reference to Ha Jin does increase the more international scope of DYK to not be all about North America and the UK. Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 08:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• I hope you don't mind, but I found the "next update" page and tweaked the hook to include a less POV-sounding (it's referenced, but does sound POV) reference to the bulldozing of the community. If it was inappropriate, feel free to revert it as such. Thanks for all your help! Regards, -- Bellwether ^B _C 08:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• The new hook looks fine. Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 08:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Thanks again for all your help! -- Bellwether ^B _C 08:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply

heh, thank you for the barnstar and more importantly, thank you for working on articles that help improve Wikipedia. :) Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 08:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply

(re: sig confusion) LOL! Good to know that wasn't a "Freudian-sock". :p Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 08:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Nope. I got one from the guy whose sig showed up there at first. -- Bellwether ^B _C 08:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply

It's the first time I've tried being involved in the DYK process at all, so I guess I'm somewhat unfamiliar with the way it works. Personally I don't believe it's likely that it'll be put on the main page anyway due to the concerns expressed about it.-- h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC) reply

If that is the case then you may want to self revert your addition to the next update. It still has a few days and it probably would be best to let an uninvolved editor (probably an admin) make the decision. That way if someone complains on the DYK page about it, you would already have an advocate in the editor or admin who promoted it. Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 16:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC) reply

What do you think of returning the hook to the suggestions page? It still has more than 24 hours to be added if it is put back. Although far fetched, would putting the hook suggest that WP is advocating for Nikki Catsouras? Is this a recent news event? DYK hooks tend to shy away from news. Does the article qualify for AFD? It certainly qualifies for a newspaper, but an encyclopedia? If the hook is put back, I'll step aside from choosing any hooks for a day. Archtransit ( talk) 17:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I do think the hook should be put back on the suggestion page but overall I'm pretty ambivalent about the article being featured. I don't see the harm but I can also see why someone would suggest it be merged into the California Highway Patrol article as probable outcome to an AfD. It is certainly a judgement call that I would leave to admins like yourself but I don't see a reason why you need to not choose anymore hooks today if you did move it back. Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 17:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi there. Thanks for the preliminary assessment and query re referencing for preselection. It was a funny situation in which to find oneself: as a non-US Wikipedian who regularly comes across US-centrism in articles, caught out taking as self-evident the fact that a US phenomenon (Presidential primaries) would be considered the "most famous" example of something. I just wrote that element of the hook without thinking, because it seemed the obvious example of preselection that might lead people to be interested in the concept. Here on the other side of the planet the US primaries are daily front-page news - but find someone who actually states their prominence as an example of a wider category? I don't know... How about "a prominent example..."? I'd welcome suggestions. Cheers. hamiltonstone ( talk) 13:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

LOL...that is interesting (re:US-centricism). :) I think the simple solution would be to just use the preface of "an example" without any adjective. It would be easy to reference since I'm surely nearly all your sources mentions it. There is not much added to the hook in terms of intrigue with the use of an extra adjective and it would be slightly more NPOV (and less US-centric :p). Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 13:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

...aren't strange if the comments are now wrong. 58.160.170.183 ( talk) 11:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes it is strange (and inappropriate) to blank another editor's comments. My concern was valid at the time that I reviewed the article. After the fact another editor improved the article and addressed those concerns. Unfortunately no one left a note on nom page mentioning that the concerns were addressed. Myself (or another editor) would have gladly re-assessed the article in accordance to the DYK criteria. A better course of action on your part would have been to simply add such a note and given me an opportunity to respond and comment on the improved article. Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 11:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

We shouldn't have to come to you. Especially when the pointlessly-prominent icons are basically a vote of no-confidence which apparently can't be revoked even when they're no longer true. If you're going to throw about vetos like that, please ensure that you follow up on them, or the other option being don't use icons at all. Daniel ( talk) 11:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

And no one is asking that you "come to me". DYK is a multi-faceted project with dozens of active editors. Its success depends on the good faith contribution of everyone. At the time of my review, I had a concern that I noted on the DYK page and also made a good faith effort to note that concern in the article with the addition of a citation needed template with a descriptive edit summary. As is very plainly evident by the Template talk:Did you know page, I do follow up with my reviews when I see that something has changed. But as volunteer, just like you, my time is not limitedless and I lack the omniscience needed to know that improvements have been made without seeing a note on the nomination page. I will note that DYK noms are candidates and it is reasonable to expect a discussion on the candidacy of a nom and to expect that discussion to be a two way street. I do place good faith that a nominator will follow up on their entries and leave a simple note asking anyone (it doesn't have to be me) to just take another look. That is all. Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 11:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

-- Zeitgespenst ( talk) 14:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the compliments on all the NRHP articles. Of course, I think that WP:NRHP as a whole deserves a lot of the credit, too.

Since you do all those wine articles yourself (for which you deserve compliments), you might be interested in another one that overlaps into that project that I took a photo for a while back, Brotherhood Winery. Daniel Case ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply

What a great pic! Thanks for the addition. :) Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 14:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The Wine Portal was just approved as a "Featured Portal", thought you might like to know.-- Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC ( talk) 05:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello Agne, there is something I think you should take a look at. I noticed that a lot of Alsace designations were back in List of Appellation d'Origine Contrôlée wines as separate AOCs, so I removed them again. When I then wanted to add/correct some Cremant and Limoux stuff I noted that there were a lot of "vin" and "vignobles" behind many redlinks and started to edit them in my window. After a while I got to the point when I thought "hey, haven't I done this before?". Have a look at this edit, which brought all those french words back in. Either it's a revert to an earlier version + additional material or it's a lot of cut'n'paste from frwiki. In either case, it didn't do much good, and I'd call it vandalism. But I would prefer someone else to have a look and possibly slap the editor with a suitable warning. In the meantime, I'm reverting the article. Tomas e ( talk) 22:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Yikes! I agree that a revert is best but I don't know if I would necessarily call it vandalism. Looking at the editor's contributions, they seem to be good faith endeavor to improve content. It was probably more a newbie mistaking and not reading the discussion on the talk page. I think the note you left on their talk page is probably the best. I'll keep on the future edits. Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 22:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The February 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash ( talk) 05:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Are you interested? If so, I'm prepared to nominate you. After some 17,000 edits, I think you've paid your dues :) Gatoclass ( talk) 05:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you. I appreciate the consideration. But I will have to decline at this time. Admins carry a heavy load keeping this place running and I'm not sure that I can give the time investment at this point. There is still quite a bit of content based work that I'd like to accomplish with the Wine Project before I shift my focus to other areas of Wikipedia. Thank you again for the thought. Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 06:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC) reply

That's okay, I understand perfectly well. Someone nominated me a couple of months ago and after some hesitation, I too ending up declining, for much the same reasons (although I don't think one necessarily takes on more work by becoming an admin. More responsibility, yes). I just thought since you aren't an admin after all this time, perhaps you'd just been overlooked :)

BTW, are you male or female? I assumed at the outset you were female, because I misread your nic as "Agnes", but in fact your nic is "Agne", which doesn't clearly indicate a gender. And I'd hate to get it wrong by calling you a "she" if you're actually a "he". Gatoclass ( talk) 11:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm a girl. :) Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 19:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Oh well, I got it right the first time :) Gatoclass ( talk) 20:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you. :) Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 22:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi there, are you attempting to put a DYK on the article I have just written about Michalowski? I noticed your request for a reference re the Chopin International Competitions, and all I can offer at present is the precise locations in my principal source for the article, and have added them. They are explicit and include a photo, but the author does not tell how he knows this information. Unfortunately the stub on Zurawlew written by User:Alton a year ago, which mentions the same fact, does not state his/her source. I have not attempted to contact Alton but think the source must be a different one, as my book has more than Alton has given about other aspects of Zurawlew's career. Hope this helps, please keep me informed with regard to DYK proposals, as it is nice to know when one's own work is getting some approval! Thanks, Eebahgum ( talk) 00:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Actually User:Piotrus nominated it for DYK. I normally reviewed submitted hooks for length and referencing when I noticed this one. It is a nice article and I would like to see it featured. Take a look at the hook that Piotrus submitted and maybe you could reworded to one that would be more easily verified with the sourcing in the article. Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 00:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Dear Agne, thanks! I have left a note for Piotr and have also added an external link to the Chopin Concourse official website, which makes the attribution [4]. I can't really think what else to do as none of my other books mention it! But this should do. I'll add the weblink to the man's stub as well. Best wishes, Eebahgum ( talk) 00:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I think the link suffices. The claim of being a student is not that controversial and the site that you are linking to looks like a reliable source. I will update the DYK nom with the verification. Thanks for the prompt reply and, more importantly, thanks for creating these great articles. :) Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 01:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

You're welcome, and thanks. Could you please check this out? [5]I just wrote a new article on Bolesław Kon and have got a rogue deletionist. I posted a justification on the Kon discussion page and that's been wiped too. I am not admin but I think this needs admin attention. Eebahgum ( talk) 03:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Actually, I'm not an admin. :) Just a regular editor like you. Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 03:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

So much the better, it's nice to meet friendly and helpful editors from time to time! Good to see that Michalowski made it to front page, thanks for whatever you did Eebahgum ( talk) 00:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry - :( Did not know that. Could you verify the length and the reference? And if it looks good to you please promote it. Thanks! - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

No problem. It happens. :) I appreciate your efforts in finding new articles for DYK and support for the project. As for the nom, it is really new (listed on the 4th) and so myself or another editor will certainly review it in time. However, the priority is to review older noms sooner before they expired. But at first glance, the article does look really interesting. Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 01:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Looks like a nice fact from here might fall a little short of the 2000 character mark - what do you think? If possible please reply on my talk page. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

After looking at the page again, I could not find any evidence to support that assertion that Ahsanullah supported the partition of Bengal. I have written a new hook on Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_February_1, which is paraphrased from the DAWN article. Baka man 02:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Sure. I'll take a look. Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 02:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Alright - I expanded it. Looks like it should pass the 1500 mark by now. I have two hooks, since you are pretty good (if you know what I mean) at DYK which one is better?

1. ...that Lepoglava prison was subsequently used by Austro-Hungary, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, the Independent State of Croatia and Communist Yugoslavia, before its current role as the main penitentiary in the Republic of Croatia?
2. ...that Lepoglava prison (officially Lepoglava penitentiary, Croatian: Kaznionica u Lepoglavi) is the oldest and largest prison located in Croatia?

Obviously the second one is kind of basic. Tell me what you think. Again, please reply on my talk page. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Could you tell me how to determine article length? I have expanded Dan Allen (gambler) and need to know how much further I need to dig for info, and I can't seem to find an easy way to determine where I'm at. Please reply on my talk page. Thanks! • Freechild 'sup? 22:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Sure. For the purpose of DYK, we measure articles based on "pure article text"-the body of the article-excluding wiki code, infoboxes, references, categories, section headers etc. The easiest way to count is to look at the article as a reader would, and cut and paste just the article text into a program like MS word that will count the characters. I created a sandbox page for the User:Agne27/DYK count test page. After removing the footnotes, I'm left with just the pure article text and looking at the history tab will tell me the how many characters. After your recent expansion, you are at 1,996 bytes which is more than enough. I'll update the DYK nom. Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 22:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for sharing your sandbox page. I understand how DYK works; I just needed to know how you figured out "pure article text." Thanks again. • Freechild 'sup? 01:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for keeping an eye on Champagne (wine region) and keeping spammers at bay. OhanaUnited ^{Talk page} 00:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, Agne27! My name is Evan, and among other things I'm the founder of Vinismo. (I've also been a Wikipedian since 2002, a MediaWiki developer almost as long, and I started the site Wikitravel back in 2003.) I noticed your comparison of important wine articles on different sites, which I find really useful, actually!

I think our intention with Vinismo is not to compete with Wikipedia and the Wine Project here, but to complement it. We want Vinismo to cover wine in excruciating detail -- an article for every wine, winery, wine region, and wine topic in the world. Our intention is to have lots of drinker-oriented details -- tasting notes, quotes and links to reviews, production details, prices in different regions, places to buy, directories of wine resources (stores, bars, classes, events) in a city or region.

Back-of-the-envelope estimates that we've done put our max total number of articles at around 100K-200K. The vast majority of subjects would never meet Wikipedia notability requirements, and most of the articles would not be encyclopedic in perspective. In other words, we're hoping to pick up where Wikipedia's wine coverage leaves off.

We have a different license than Wikipedia, although I think that sometime in the next year or so that should change (since Wikipedia is moving to either be compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike or use it entirely). I hope at some point that the minority of articles on Vinismo that duplicate Wikipedia articles can either be shared or have a lot of content sharing.

Anyways, I just wanted to let you know our perspective. I'd love to hear what you think Vinismo can do to support and complement the Wine Project! -- ESP ( talk) 20:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Howdy! Nice to meet you! Yeah, as I looked more into it. I got the sense that Vinismo was different and I appreciate the more "wine guide" approach. The subject of notability of wineries is a tricky one that we're always debating over at the Wine Project, and your opinions there would certainly be welcomed, especially when it comes to self promotion. Looking at Vinismo, it seems that, like you said, the notability standards are different and it would seem more ideal for wineries to post their material there where it could also be edited by folks that have encountered their wines. It would also seem more beneficial because of your search engine which seems to match wineries up based on what people are looking for. Outside of Google rankings, I never saw much commercial benefit for wineries wanting their entries in Wikipedia.

At the wine project, we're trying to expand our indepth coverage of wine grapes and regions-with a far fetching goal of being a better resource than the Oxford Companion to wine. :p I think there would be some real benefit once the licenses become compatible. A particular area of interest would be free pictures, which we never seem to have good enough access to. I'm sure Vinismo users have the potential resources to take pictures of different wines from different areas and so forth which would be very valuable for illustrating Wikipedia articles. Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 21:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, especially with wineries, we want companies and staff to be engaged on Vinismo -- we think they're going to have a lot of detailed information that won't be available anywhere else. And we do have different notability requirements -- I think our basic requirement is that wines be commercially available (no homebrewers listed...), but we really haven't encountered the problem yet.

As far as license compatibility: we can probably do something about this now, and not wait for the licenses to catch up. It may be a good idea to encourage dual-licensing on both sides to make content portability easier.

Lastly: I wonder if there might be some point to opening up this conversation to a wider audience of Vinistos and Wikipedians. Maybe I'll make an "Embassy" page on Vinismo for Wiki Winos, and if it makes sense we could have a similar page for Wikiproject Wine. What do you think? Are there any similar "embassies" for wine-related wikiprojects in other language versions of Wikipedia? -- ESP ( talk) 22:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I haven't heard of anything like that but I think we could do something. In about two weeks, I'm going to post a new edition of the Wine Project newsletter. Would you be interested in being the featured Wiki-Wino and you could talk about Vinismo and explain a little bit about it to all the Wine Project members at once? Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 22:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Oh, gladly! That'd be fun. What do I need to do? -- ESP ( talk) 22:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Well take a look at the questions in the link above. Feel free to answer any that you like and also add what information you'd like to share with the Wine Project members about Vinismo and a picture if you want. Post your reply sometime in the next two weeks over on the answer page and I'll be sure to include it. Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 22:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Also, as far as portability, I had a lengthy conversation with the webmaster of Encyclowine, which borrows heavily from Wikipedia, about similar issues. After looking at Wikipedia's current licensing, I don't think there would be any problem with Vinismo using Wikipedia content now as long as there is a link to original Wikipedia article at the bottom of the page or in a "source section". As far as Wikipedia using Vinismo content, I'm not too well versed in that area to know for sure. :) But I know that photos with the CC-Attribution-SA license are okay to use. Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 22:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi re DYK Eric Mjöberg – thanks for checking – my bad: "all 18.. of them" is a turn of phrase. They were from the Kimblerley. The east coast ones are another story yet to come.Ffollowing your notes, I've tried to fix the links (one page was moved), the Stolen Remains Coming Home by David King link is now [6], he is also the ref for the 18 boxes (though news items varied in the number of bodies) this is the number of boxes in the documentary as well - should this be an added reference? Unfortunately I stuffed the references that would look smoother, the list now looks repetitious. I'd like it to be a nice article because this was a significant development in repatriation of human bones that affected museums worldwide. If it's acceptable to do so, I'd like to resubmit it. cheers Julia Rossi ( talk) 09:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the clarification. I'll take another look at the article and the nom. Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 20:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Appreciate it, Agne. You are fastidious. Julia Rossi ( talk) 06:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Glad I didn't disappoint you. ;) · AndonicO ^Hail! 01:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC) reply

In fact, you're my new idol. :) Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 01:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I'll try to get on top of the rose translation. If there's no activity in the next few days, you should try bothering me again because I may have forgotten. Thanks for thinking of me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mroconnell ( talk • contribs) 02:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Oh cool! Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 05:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Well, I might go to Loire as well sooner or later, because I've never been there. I started working in Brussels rather than Stockholm about a month ago, on a three year secondment, and to my wine tasting friends (some of whom think that Brussels is a much less good-looking city than Stockholm) I was quick to point out how much closer to some very nice wine regions it is. I was then thinking primarily of Mosel and Champagne, but Luxembourg is of course even closer (I would guess 150-200 km or so), and I've noted that it doesn't have an enwiki article so that's why I considered that a future visit would be a "fact-finding mission". I haven't made a full 3-year plan yet, but I'll try to work by concentric circles, and bring a digital camera along for amateurish Commons images. Tomas e ( talk) 09:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Very cool. It is nice to find ways to combine work and pleasure, especially with a 3 year assignment. Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 09:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Speaking of which, I happend to notice that one of your recent edits included the phrase "wines in my shop" as a comment. I suppose that means that learning more about wines by writing about them adds to your work-relevant knowledge, and explains how you'll able to spend so much time on the project... Do you ever go abroad on "fact-finding" to discover new additions firsthand? Or are there enough importers who want to relieve you of such encumbering travel. Tomas e ( talk) 11:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

How very observant. :p Yeah, I actually do use Wikipedia as a bit of a learning tool and having the laptop at the shop with our reference material is very handy. It's pretty much what I do when I don't have any customers present. :) As for travel, while I've had the opportunity to visit wine regions on the West Coast and grew up in Missouri wine country, I haven't had the time or finances to go abroad. Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 11:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your work creating articles on Germany's wine regions. The information was sorely needed and you've done a great job. — AjaxSmack 04:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Well thank you. Most of the credit should go to User:Tomas e but I see that you already dropped him a note. :) Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 21:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi don't know if that has an article yet but I thought you might be interested in a new page I patrolled List of Quebec wineries. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hmm there is no Quebec wine wine article yet. It is certainly on the list (After a British Columbia wine which is a tad more prominent in the Canadian wine industry). Though overall, I wonder about the notability and usefulness of this list. If wiki links were added they would all undoubtedly be red. It just seems like a directory style listing. Admittedly, I don't know if I would be the best to put a prod or AfD on here since I've already made my opinions known on WP:WINEGUIDE. Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 21:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Well nobody knows better than you!!! Do what ever you think is best, perhaps if you did create a Quebec wine page the list could be merged and perhaps only the most notable wines included perhaps ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Ok. I will try to gather material for a potential Quebec wine article, but at this point, I think it would be easier to gather material for a more general Alcoholic beverages of Quebec including the whole deal of what is produced there (beers, ciders, wines etc.). Naturally, Quebec will never be a big producer of wine because of the climate, but this does not proscribe small productions of very good wines, even red ones. This is what we have seen for the past 10 years or so. -- Mathieugp ( talk) 15:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

While I can't speak about Quebec beers, ciders and spirits, I do know that there is enough reliable sources to make at least a start class article on Quebec wine (Like Ontario, I know that they have a sizable icewine industry and have done a bit with cool climate hybrids). While they might not be big, Quebec wine is certainly interesting. Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 17:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Great work on the article Wines of Calabria- a region of good wines little known outside of Calabria itself. At best, some people have tried the Ciro', so it's great to find a well written article that expands on other varieties. Please keep up the great work- I am looking forward to reading other articles you might have started about lesser known wine regions. Dionix ( talk) 18:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Why thank you. Eventually we'll get to nearly all Italian wine regions, it is just a work in progress. Wines of Sicily is high on the to do list. Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 21:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Agne. I've found these little château ID cards from the 30s, and have inserted two of them so far, Image:Ausone 1931 chateau card.JPG, Image:Cantemerle 1931 chateau card.JPG but I'm not sure about the most appropriate tags they ought to have. Even though they're at least 76 years old, are they maybe not old enough to be public domain? I opted for fair use logo.. You think this works or would you recommend a different approach? And do you they're appropriate for the articles? MURGH ^disc. 18:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Well they are certainly interesting and worth having in the article. Unfortunately, I'm not well versed enough in all the copyright technicalities. I think your fair use idea is probably a good route but you may want to ask at Wikipedia:Image copyright help desk to get, hopefully, a more knowledgeable answer. Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 21:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

OK thanks, I'll leave a question there and leave it at just a few of them for now. MURGH ^disc. 21:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi. I boldly moved out one of the Bxd AOCs I've been tinkering with, Haut-Médoc AOC, thinking it's relatively close to the format of info and refs I'll be able to put out. Please take a look, since I'm sure it can be structured better, and I'd love pointers for the forthcoming ones. Not sure this one's an obvious candidate for hooks and a DYK  ;^) MURGH ^disc. 22:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Sure, I'm going through the B class wine articles at the moment but I'll take a look sometime tonight. Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 22:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Update I took a look at the article, added a small history blurb with a DYK hook. I like the layout and idea that you are going with on this sub AOCs. I really like the table with the classified estates and Cru Bourgeois. Looks very sharp. I think as you get out to the more obscure AOCs, it probably would be best to make one major article with mentioning of the smaller ones and redirect them to that article. If you have enough content to make more than a stub, then there should probably be an article. But if it is only going to be a stub, best to consolidate it. Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 03:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Cool. Nice image and history insert. Yes, I think I worked out a hiearchy (for the most obviously small ones anyway) and play with how "mediums" such as Listrac and Moulis do on their own. Cheers, MURGH ^disc. 04:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Well, we'll see if that doesn't bring in a few attempts at distortion to the article. :-) A strong and to some perhaps controversial, but I hope solidly referenced statement. Tomas e ( talk) 11:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

We will need to keep an eye on it to prevent any nationalism get in the way of encyclopedic integrity. It is a great article, well grounded in good sources. Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 17:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey, I've commented on the B/GA proposals on the project talk. But don't consider those my newsletter recommendations, I want to take some time to review all the B-class ones and refine my picks. I'll get back to you with them asap (not like last time). Thanks Agne, Van Tucky 20:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Cool! Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 20:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I wanted to let you know that I finished my interview. With literally hours to spare. Let me know if there's anything else, or if I should cover some points in more or less detail. It was a fun bit of text to do: thanks for inviting me to do it! -- ESP ( talk) 01:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Why thank you! Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 03:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply

If you have a moment, I went and did this odd article-list-thing, since I think it is sort of encyclopedic and ought to be freely available, I'm not sure where it fits, not even sure what the best title would be. You have a suggestion for that? For now I just have it userfied: User:Murgh/Alexis Lichine's classification of Bordeaux wine.. MURGH ^disc. 03:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hmm, that is a toughie. I agree that it is very encyclopedic and Lichine's alternative classification is probably the most notable alt-classification there is. However I don't know if the "non-wine geeky" community of Wikipedia will grasp that and I do fret the possibility of a tough AfD battle if it was posted as is. My suggestion (and I hate to recommend more work since you've already put a lot into this article) is to reshape the article as Criticism of the Bordeaux wine classification (or something similar) and include Lichine's alternative as a sub section with maybe a reference (though not a full table) to some of the other notable wine writer's list (Parker's, Broadbent and I think Peppercorn has one). This article could function as a splinter from the main 1855 classification article. Lord knows there is enough reliable sources about the criticisms of the 1855 list out there to make an article that is AfD-proof. Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 03:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes I think a criticism article is certainly warranted by abundant RS, definitely a juicy one to compile and construct, but (from the slice of sources I've been by) such an article would span the full 150 years and warrant some hugeness.. *ugh* Anyway, an article passing by AL's Bdxclass ought to lead on to a Main article: Alexis.. and considering the sources I do have (although a bit heavy-relying on Prial) I think it merits a WP-place. It would surprise me enormously if consensus found it shy of WP:N in an AFD. And, I think shockingly, the actual list is nowhere to be found on internet, so I'm gonna follow my gut and zeal and go public. At any rate if it should end in a bad AFD I can always userfy and continue like you suggest.

BTW I have Peppercorn's published ranking/musings (as of 1991 anyway), and he tackles it quite differently, like using the word "perhaps" a lot, and keeps it short, so that could easily become a section in the Peppercorn article. This one of course doesn't belong in Alexis Lichine.  ;^) MURGH ^disc. 12:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I think the result of Afd campaign would be "no consensus", so why not give it a try? -- Doopdoop ( talk) 21:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Still working on Toscana article? I'll get some books out of the library and try to help! I want to get it to B and then GA. -- Charleenmerced ^Talk 07:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Oh feel free. I have a couple other big articles on my plate (Like a revision of the Cabernet Sauvignon article). I am more than happy to let your work your magic like with Carmenere and Tempranillo. I'll keep and eye and try to clarify things when I can. Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 07:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Yes, that would be very helpful because I do not know a lot about Toscana, just the basics. -- Charleenmerced ^Talk 08:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, my family is from Tuscany and I still go there every year in Summer, so if I can be of any help just ask, and I'll do my best :) -- BodegasAmbite ( talk) 09:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply

You seem to know a lot about wine, so I'd like to ask a question. Wine, made from grape, is highly versatile in flavor. Is it possible to use any other fruits to produce a drink with such a wide range of flavor, or is it something only grape can do? I am aware of fruit wines but I got an impression that they are very limited in versatility. -- BorgQueen ( talk) 09:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the nice words. :) The Grape article is sorely lacking a type of "physiology"/components section to speak to this (on a long list of to-dos) but grapes are unique from other fruits in their ability to produce all these different flavors in wine. While there are elements (namely how it expresses terroir) that are not fully understood there are some identifiable components (found mostly in grape skins with a few in the sugars) that are large contributors to a wine's potential flavors--namely phenols, methoxypyrazines, monoterpenes and mercaptans. The pyrazine "green bell" flavor compound is one, geraniol is responsible for some floral aromas in Riesling and Gerties, megastigmatrienone produces some tobacco and spice notes in red wines, etc. While some of these elements do exist in other fruits/vegetables, the combinations and amount present in wine grapes as well how they interact during the maceration and fermentation process are unique. Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 13:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I didn't see a link to the VP discussion, so if you wanted me to chime I'd be happy to do it. The Cat project is more hit and miss, but the firm consensus currently at the Dog project is that galleries in dog breeds are a strict no-no, except where there is great variation in type within a breed and there isn't enough space in the text to house all the images. I personally removed many dog and cat galleries, and I can count the number of dog galleries left on one hand. Besides, excess images in one class of article is not an excuse for excess elsewhere. Van Tucky 20:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Just saw the link. Again, as a result of my edits and the ensuing talk consensus (it was rather uncontroversial), dog articles should only have galleries in very special cases. Van Tucky 20:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks, I appreciate the info and your time. :) Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 23:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Would Mr. Tabbers like to be in my Catbook, a frivolous user-space endeavor?-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 00:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC) reply

LOL. I'm sure he would. :) How cute. Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 01:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Done. [7]-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 02:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Ummmm.....I don't know. But I'll sure try. :) Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 17:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Actually, we're closer than I thought. Only a couple more to go. :) Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 01:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Agne. I appreciate your enthusiasm and interest in this project, and I'm going to definitely raise this option when I go to the Columbia Free Culture Meeting tonight. Though I'm not sure if an alcohol topic would be OK with the university, when most of the students will probably be under 21. And, I'm a little skeptical of your numbers above, because people tend to be interested in specific topics in the Humanities (authors, books, artistic movements), rather than the academic discipline itself. But your willingness to help with sources, etc., definitely will count in the Wine Project's favor.-- Pharos ( talk) 20:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply

No problem. Thanks for the reply. :) Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 03:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply

The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash ( talk) 05:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Agne, could you please take a look at List of tributaries of Larrys Creek, specifically its expansion here diff? I was wondering if it had been expanded 5x but had no idea how to figure that based on text vs. total size (it is not 5x based on file size). I have a nice hook to nominate it for DYK already thought up, but figured I would check with you first. Thanks in advance for your help, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 06:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC) reply

It's close enough that I think with a strong hook it should be feature. On Feb 19th, before you started your expansion it had 1,184 bytes of prose. Today it has 5,052 bytes. Not quite a 5x expansion but it is clear that a lot of work has gone into the revision. Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 17:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks so much - I can add a few more sentences on the geology and mountains which should get it even closer to a true 5x. I was not sure about counting at all and appreicate your work on my behalf. The hook I thought of was DYK... that Larrys Creek in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania has 42 named tributaries in its watershed, including one named "Little Dog Run"?. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC) reply

That would catch my attention. You normally don't think of something named a "creek" having so many tributaries. With 42, it would sound like a major river. Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 03:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks again, it is a creek I am very fond of and which always manages to surprise me when I research it further than I have before. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Your Wineness. How are you? It is His Baldness here. Somebody just started Tsinandali wine but I don't know how correct it is. Perhaps you could give it a clean sometime thanks. Also remember to add those canadian wines!! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 11:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Yikes! That does need some work. Admittedly Georgian wines are a weak area of mine but I'll give it a go. As for the Canadian wines, they're still on the to-do list, after I work my way through the remaining Top-importance wine articles that are still at start class. However, I will be visit several wine regions in British Columbia this summer (and hopefully Quebec/Niagara in the fall) so I should be able to get some pictures to go with those articles. :) Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 17:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Mustum DYK

Thanks for your work on Beaujolais. However, there is one important issue still at hand. According to the GA criteria, direct quotations must be, cited directly after the punctuation each time they appear. One citation in a paragraph for two quotations (even if it's from the same source) doesn't cut it. Quotes are the only thing that always requires immediate attribution through a citation. If you want to include several quotes in a single sentence, one cite will do. But if you have multiple separate sentences each with a quote, you have to cite each sentence. It's not negotiable. Van Tucky 18:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey Van Tucky, I appreciate your time. But looking at the GA criteria, it says that (2b) "at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons" which I have done. Every shred of information in that article is cited and attributable to an inline citation. I do not see "redundancy" as a characteristic of a good article which would be the case if the same cite is added to one line, followed by the next to two to three lines that are also sourced by the same footnote. As a compromise, I would be willing to add a "hidden text" pointing out that the source for the quote can be found on the next line. Would that be acceptable? Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 18:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply

As a side note, I respect your convictions though mine just happen to differ philosophically in this regard. If you can not, in good conscious, pass this article for GA. I will respect that and would encourage a broader discussion of the matter at GA/R. As a strong advocate for in-line cites, I certainly appreciate and heavily encourage their use. But I do think the question of redundancy and readability has a conflict with some aspect. If there is an unwritten "corollary" addition to the GA criteria that is encouraging redundancy, that should be discussed by a larger group. Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 18:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I've responded on article talk. Van Tucky 18:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you. I understand we just have a philosophical disagreement. That is all. Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 19:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Agne, there's a question on the science refdesk about red wine "breathing" if you would like to help, thanks Julia Rossi ( talk) 02:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Sure. I'll take a look. Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 02:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for decanting that question –– the whole thing came alive, : ) Julia Rossi ( talk) 21:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply