Talk:Seppeltsfield (wine)

Self published sources

It is concerning that the majority of the references used in this article are from the wineries own, self-published commercial website. As WP:SELFPUB notes, while self published sources are explicitly prohibited on Wikipedia articles should not be composed primarily of them. Their usages should be kept to a bare minimum and not be the sources of the majority of cited references. Are there not any independent 3rd party sources for this information? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 11:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the self-published material in this article. It's not unduly self-serving, nor does it contravene any of WP's other guidelines regarding self published sources. Hazir (talk) 12:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Self published, commercial web sites are always self-serving. A winery wouldn't publish the material unless it served them some benefit. Again, per WP:SELFPUB, their usage is not explicitly prohibited but said usage should be kept at an minimum with a preference for using independent, third party reliable sources. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 12:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Also note, regarding the removal of the tag, the purpose of clean up tags is to encourage improvements. The referencing on this article would undoubtedly be improved if more independent, third party referencing is utilized and if WP:PEACOCK (well known by whom? according to whom?, etc) terms are clarified. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 12:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you're being a little dramatic here. The article is well written and has a reasonable balance of self and other referencing. The material that is self referenced is mostly inane historical information about the development of the winery - hardly self-serving commercial spam. I've no doubt you've seen the Penfolds article, why haven't you plastered it with tags? It seems to me that you're just trying to make a point here in light of your [AfD mission]. It's interesting that you claimed 94% of the wineries listed in the AfD discussion could not ever have decent articles written for them, and when one was, you've spent half the day trying to trash it. Hazir (talk) 12:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Seppeltsfield was included in my estimation and so it doesn't surprise me that an article on it was created. I started off by just suggesting that referencing be improved. After you remove my tags, I decided to take a more closer examination of the article to see if my tags were really justified or if I was just being "too dramatic". Once I started to dig deeper, I realized that there was quite a bit of work that could be done. Now I don't know what type of standards you wish to hold poker articles too, but I care deeply about the quality and encyclopedic nature of wine articles very deeply. I hold no editor to a standard above and beyond Wikipedia's policies and guidelines--a standard that I hold myself too. Clean up tags are not the enemy nor are they "trashing" an article. In case you forgot, Wikipedia is a a work in progress and part of that process is identifying which areas need to be improved. As a new editor, Rrwhine is only going to learn if we show him where he can improve. After giving him general advice on winery articles, I'm trying my best to be as precised about what specifics in the articles needs to be worked on. Right now, referencing is a big concern especially considering the many contradictions and failed verifications uncovered so far. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 13:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, all sounds good. Just one minor detail: in the same time you spent plastering tags all over the article along with detailed explanations, you probably could have rewritten it. Anyhow, do what you may, I just hope the orginal writer isn't too discouraged and I sincerely hope that you hold all winery articles to this degree of scrutiny (hmmm so how about that Penfolds article?). Hazir (talk) 13:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Eventually they all will be. The Penfolds has been on my hit list for improvement for sometime, but admittedly so too is Barossa Valley wine and History of Australian wine not too mention the 8 "C-class" Category:Top-importance Wine articles that I still need to work up to B class and so forth. It just all in good time. This article became more of a priority since it is important to help get new editors off on the right foot, especially if they are diving head first into the tricky WP:POV and WP:ADVERT waters that a lot of winery articles easily get trapped in. I like the initiative of Rrwhine. It's not always the case where new editors jump right into AfD's and the like. But that initiative makes it even more important to bring them up to speed in the beginning when there is just one article to worry about rather than after severe issues arise in several articles further down the road. Who knows, maybe once he has figured out the ropes, he will take care of rewriting that Penfolds article himself :) And yes, I could have rewritten this article myself but remember the old adage about teaching a man to fish? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 13:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I think we're on the same page here. All of this wine talk, think I might finish of that Chianti... Hazir (talk) 13:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)