Talk:Beaujolais

The {{GAN}} template should be substituted at the top of the article talk page.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wine, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.WineWikipedia:WikiProject WineTemplate:WikiProject WineWine articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

France B‑class High‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Actually, my statement was correct. The crus of Beaujolais do not state on the label that they are from Beaujolais. Instead, the cru is listed, as in Appellation Morgon Controlee. See the labels at this page, for example. Yes, they do disclose the place of origin, but not the general region. Like 99% of wine drinkers, I don't have all the crus memorized, and I wrote the list in the article... :) Wnissen 04:45, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

2003 Is an AWESOME vintage for Beaujolais. Buy all you can!!!--FleurieAppellation 03:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2003 is fine for Beaujolais but far to much for Beaujolais nouveau or Beaujolais primeur. Ericd 17:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

* Ok you wine snobs. can one of you tell me how to pronounce "beaujolais"? I've been saying BO-JHO-LAY for years now, but on NPR today I heard it pronounced BOOO-JHO-LAY. who can hook it up?? Taco325i 18:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beaujolais as slang

Should this even be there? I've never heard it before, and it was used maybe once, on one nerd website. I don't think its notable enough to be called "slang". In The Flesh ? 22:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beaujolais and Bob Dylan

http://www.google.se/search?hl=sv&q=beaujolais+%22bob+dylan%22&btnG=Google-s%C3%B6kning&meta=

Clean-Up

I cleaned the article up until I felt it met Wikipedia's standards and removed the clean-up tag; if anyone has a problem with this please go ahead and feel free to say so.

Pronunciation

Hey could someone upload an audio clip of the pronunciation of "Beaujolais?" That would be nice. —Tokek 14:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming

This article is more about Beaujolais wines than it is the region. Shouldn't it be renamed "Beaujolais wine" to fit in with the rest of wine articles on wikipedia? --Eubanks718 18:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess not. If you did, you would also have to rename hundreds, perhaps thousands, of articles that go by the same fashion to name the wine (or the product: the list is endless!) borrowing the name of the location or region. Alas, and such tradition applies worldwide. --AVM 23:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cru Grand Cru

The article refers to grand cru?

This has a very specific meaning in other regions of France. Is the use of grand cru correct in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.147.20.130 (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Grand Cru classification in Beaujolais; the highest level is Cru Beaujolais. The article has a very good description of the various appellations and classification levels in Beaujolais but seemed to use "Grand Cru" as synonym to (individual Crus in?) Cru Beaujolais. To avoid confusion I removed this usage. Tomas e (talk) 11:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of March 22, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

While the article is mostly well-written, there some copyediting that needs to be done, mostly to make sure it is in compliance with the Manual of Style. I'll be doing this myself, and will note any specifics that need doing on talk.

2. Factually accurate?:

Almost perfect in terms of verification through reliable sources, there are few small points when it comes to citing sources. Most importantly, there are two direct quotes that are uncited (I'll mark them with {{citequote}}). Also, it is not a strict pass/fail issue, but I would suggest you cite directly any instances where you use specific dates, measurements and statistics. Even if this means duplicating refs, it's helpful (and advised by WP:CITE).

3. Broad in coverage?:

Broad in coverage

4. Neutral point of view?:

Gives fair representation to all significant points of view. However, WP:NPOV advises against maintaining segregated criticism or controversy sections, and it makes little sense for a section on historical incidents to appear outside the History section. Scandals is also a fairly vague name, so think about how it might be changed. At the very least, the section should be moved to be a subsection of history.

5. Article stability?

Obviously stable, no edit wars etc.

6. Images?:

Provides adequate source and license information for any images present

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. VanTucky 22:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

For readability, please place any comments or questions pertaining to the hold below rather than within the body of the review. Thank you!