Talk:Chaptalization

Skeptical

I am skeptical as to whether ethanol is *needed* to preserve wine, as it is in a stable state when it is bottled and free of oxygen, just like beer is.

Ethanol has a low viscosity, and thus it would lower the viscosity of wine. This, to me, would be a change in body, but definitely not an increase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.109.168.52 (talk • contribs)

Ethanol isn't needed, but it does act as a preservative. There are plenty of infections that can taint wine that don't require much if any oxygen. The additional ethanol helps make the wine a more hostile environment for bacteria.

Body isn't simply related to the viscosity of the wine, it's an abstract concept related to mouthfeel. Lots of things come into play, including several other of the side-products of fermentation (glycerol for one) . Increasing the alcohol content of a wine tends to make it feel fuller in the mouth of a drinker, although how much is pretty subjective. --- The Bethling^(Talk) 18:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the bit about viscosity, as that has less to do with body than the flavors. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Good Article Review (2007)

Hereby I would like to share with you my review of this article as a Good Article Nominee ;) Let me begin with stating that I really have to appreciate all the effort that was put into creating this really enjoyable, informative and well-sourced article. However, there are still some flaws that do not allow me to pass it as a Good Article. I am afraid some of the shortcomings are rather substantial, but I hope the active editors of this article will improve it in no time, so that it could be renominated soon.

The usual review roundup according to WIAGA:

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

The issues I have identified are: (note from contributions: I am striking out those comments that have been addressed or have become obsolete due to changes)

1. I have never heard of the process and I guess quite many people did not, so I am not really sure whether there is a "popular belief" here (lead section, first paragraph) - I guess it wouldn't hurt just to state that the process does not make the wine sweeter (which one might wonder about anyway on reading what it consists in). Moreover - if the sugar does not make the wine sweeter, how in the world could it be tasted? I guess this statement is quite redundant.
2. The second paragraph of the lead section does not summarize the article, but would rather fit in the section of legality (which could use an introduction of why is that an issue). Additionaly, I believe that there is no need to mention Ms MacNeil specifically. Last but not least, as a person not really into vine, I have no idea what "flabbiness" might consist in.
3. History section, first paragraph - what is "body and mouth feel"? A wikilink would come in handy...
4. I believe there is no need to keep the last sentence in the section separate from the preceding paragraph.
5. The "Process" section is too brief in discussing the actual process. I can figure out what is actually meant, but I guess a tad more introduction, even if bordering repetition of what has already been said above, might make sense.
6. The discussion of processes alternative or similar to chaptalization could be done in a separate section, though I believe a "See also" section would be even more appropriate.
7. Why no links to beet sugar and corn syrup? While we are at it - why no link to chemist?
8. The "Legality" section contains a discussion of why the process is employed, which would belong elsewhere.
9. It would be interesting to know how exactly is the amount of alcohol generated by chaptalization determined.
10. The bullet-point list of regions permitting/not permitting chaptalization is not overly handsome, I was wondering whether it could be converted into a map. I understand that the regions not mentioned are do not have particularly strong wine industry, but still could some patterns concerning the legality of the process be determined (e.g. whether the process is generally permitted except for the regions that stricly forbid it?)

    I converted it to a 2-column list. A map isn't practical because some regions would be too small to see. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

All concerns described above have now been addressed. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I also have several reservations concerning the language employed. e.g.:

1. In the first paragraph of the lead section, the article says that the process was "named for" Mr Chaptal. Not being a native speaker I cannot be sure of that, but I believe the correct preposition would be "(named) after".
2. Second paragraph in the history section - I believe adding "(discovered) that" might help readers not to lose track of the actual sense of the sentence. In the same sentence "under ripened" or perhaps "underripened" or "unripened"? There is also a case of "over ripening" in the "Process" section.
3. Fourth paragraph in this section - why not simply "the process became controversial"?
4. Does Champagne (sparkling wine) really have to be spelt with a capital "C" invariably?

Again, not being a native speaker, I am not sure what to make of it, but I believe it might be advisable for a native speaker, and avid proofreader, to thoroughly browse the article.

Kind regards, PrinceGloria 21:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your very thoughtful and thorough review. I will take your notes into consideration and work on the areas that you address and hopefully be able to renominate it for a passing grade. :) Agne^Cheese/^Wine 07:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Good luck and have fun with that - it seems like you do, which is a great thing! Keep them coming, as I said I don't know much about wine and reading those articles is very enjoyable. I will not review the one on Cabernet Sauvignon though, because I believe it is better to maintain some diversity in reviewing. PrinceGloria 08:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Just as a little thing, it's true that you usually name things 'after' someone, but 'named for' is also perfectly OK. Tends to be only used as an adjective, and I guess it's a bit more sophisticated, more 'literary' English. FlagSteward 14:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

All concerns described above have now been addressed. In the process I discovered a couple places that I am sure are true claims, but need citations. Anyone, please help if you can. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Content problems with the lead

I see problems with each of the two lead paragraphs.

The first paragraph states "Contrary to popular belief, this process does not make the wine sweeter but only artificially inflates the alcohol content. Additionally, the sugar in chaptalized wine cannot be tasted.[1]" I have trouble believing the cited reference actually makes this claim. If you add too much sugar, the yeast won't ferment all of it into alcohol before fermentation stops. Florida wines (according to my experience in questioning winemakers there) are often heavily chaptalized to make the resulting wine sweeter than it normally would be.

The second paragraph has two problems. First, it mentions a critic's opinion there and nowhere else; those sentences should be moved into the following section that discusses controversy (and perhaps controversy should be given a subsection). Second the paragraph says: "This effect is then masked with the addition of sugar to balance the high acidity and "flabbiness" in the wine.[1]" The way the sentence is written, it sounds like it's equating high acidity with flabbiness, but high acidity is the opposite of flabbiness. Maybe it should be "high acidity OR flabbiness"? The cited reference can't be checked online, but if anyone has it, please look it up and check what it actually says regarding acidity and flabbiness. -Amatulic 23:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the second criticism. I'm removing the sentence as it is nonsensical. OliAtlason (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with #2, but as to the #1, if sugar is added that is not fermented, it's not really chaptalization, it's plain sweetening - or dosage as it is called in champagne production. But just as the peer reviewer had pointed out, it's uncertain if there really is a "popular belief" about it. Tomas e (talk) 07:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe it's been over a year since I left my criticism. I've worked a bit on the article, cleaning up citation formatting, expanding the lead, adding a paragraph about U.S. regulations, locating dead links, reformatting the list of regions into 2 columns, and adding "citation needed" tags where needed. There is still work to be done. My comment about the critic's opinion in the lead still stands.

By the way, regarding my comment about Florida: they add sugar regardless of whether their target flavor is sweet. Their grapes simply lack sufficient sugar. The southeast U.S. taste in wines seem to tend toward sweeter ones, so they add extra sugar beyond what's needed for proper fermentation. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Review (Nov 2008)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chaptalization/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

OVERALL: Nice article, that still needs some work to be GA.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

   See comments below. Overall though needs some clarity, citations tidied, and use of tables where appropriate.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Held, then failed

Comments:

Lead section

• Needs ref on regulations in 1907.
• Possibly give an example or two of regions it's legal in, i.e. those that product grapes with low sugar content.
• Refs/examples for the prohibition in various countries would be helpful, though not necessary.

History section

• "Roman winemakers were able to identify the benefits of added sense of body or mouthfeel"

• Suggestions, add: [due to the added sugar/honey, etc]. Overall needs clarification.

• "At the turn of the twentieth century, the process became controversial in the French wine industry with vignerons in the Languedoc protesting the production of "artificial wines" that flooded the French wine market and drove down prices. In June 1907, huge demonstrations broke out across the Languedoc with over 900,000 protesters demanding that the government take action to protect their livelihood."

• Here quotes are used, but nothing is cited.
• Also, a ref about these riots would is preferred.

Process variations

• A ref for the use of corn syrup is warranted due to its main use in the US. Either a ref, or qualify the statement to say where/who would use corn syrup, i.e. the US.

• Re-hydration and acidification: describe whether they're used together, separately, and maybe the benefits of one process over the other.

Legality

• I strongly recommend making the zone A, B and C information into a table.
  • We can try that, althought the bullet list is short and concise, so I'm unsure of the value added of a table? ~Amatulić (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC) OK, I converted it to a table. It does seem to be an improvement. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• I removed a chunk of paragraph which followed the zone information as it seemed to be more information than was needed and confused the article. If you believe it was essential to the article you may of course re-add, but definitely ensure you've drafted it to fit well into the article.
  • I re-incorporated the deleted material into the table. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
    • It looks good now, thank you. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Countries and Regions list

• I'd like to see this information presented as a table as well; though not required.
  • Tables aren't useful or practical for column-oriented lists, especially when the number of rows in each column can vary as they are updated. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

References

• See WP:CITE#HOW to get the citations in order please.

Overall: I think the article would pass if these relatively easy to fix issues were addressed. I'll come back in a week to re-review, and I'll monitor this page for comments/questions. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a general note about referencing

Per WP:LEAD, an item doesn't needed to have a footnote if it is already sourced elsewhere in the article. All information about the 1907 riots is already completely sourced to Phillips' History of wine (currently footnote #6). The corn syrup use is referenced by the Wine Spectator article by Daniel Sogg (currently footnote #3). I think those were the only referencing issues from the review. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 08:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the comment on citations needing tidying up. They all use the citation templates on WP:CIT for consistency. What more is needed in terms of "tidying"? ~Amatulić (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see, at minimum the required fields used, e.g. for a web cite use URL and title. Accessdates and publication dates are also preferred, but not required (though a good article is meant to be a standard above the minimum). For example, the EU regulations have no dates at all. Also, for electronic sources use dates in ISO format YEAR-MO-DAY. Essentially by tidying I meant ensure the minimum is there (found in bold at WP:CITE), and ensure that the date formatting is not only correct, but consistent. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As the person who cleaned up the cites a couple months back, I can tell you that all fields that can be filled in were filled in, especially URL and title for web sites. All citations have dates, where dates are available, and all dates are formatted consistently as YYYY-MM-DD except where the publication itself specifies only the year, or only the month and year. Please check this again. If your browser or user settings are causing dates to appear inconsistently, that isn't a problem for this article, as long as they are correct in the citation template.

I honestly don't see where you're seeing a problem. Might it be those cites that have just an author and a page? They conform to standard citation format, where a previous citation is completely referenced, just with a different page number.

Please provide a specific example of where you see a problem, and suggest how to fix it, and I'll gladly do so. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Woops, I did find one misformatted citation (#2) that must have snuck in after my cleanup a couple months back. Now fixed. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was the ref that I specifically spoke of above. If the other issues are resolved we should be able to pass this. I choose this article to review not because I know anything about wine production, but because I found it interesting and a good read! Nja247 (talk • contribs)

Re-review soon

This is a notice that I will start my review again shortly (Monday 1 December). I see that at least one of the things I highlighted for clarification has not been addressed. I re-read the relevant bit in the article and I still believe there's a need for clarification. Thus anyone who contributes to this article may wish to address the issues I raised for this article to meet and pass GA review criteria. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Closed, failed

You may wish to resubmit once all issues raised in the review have been addressed. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 07:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Aargh. Vacation prevented me from cleaning it up in time. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Champagne

The process section says "Champagne producers sometimes employ chaptalization," but the caption of the champagne photo in the legality section section claims "Chaptalization is a(?) standard in the production of champagne." These two claims seem to be at odds with one another, though I know little about wine production so I Could be wrong. My intuition is that the caption is wrong, and is actually referring to dosage. Even if it is right, I'm pretty sure it should say simply "standard" not "a standard." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.19.93.179 (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chaptalization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120207123959/http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/euwineregs.pdf to http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/euwineregs.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)