Below is a questionnaire pertaining to the activities of the Wine Project. Members and non-members are welcome to participate. Feel free to answer any questions that you like. You don't have to answer all of them. There is no end date for this survey. Its purpose is to aid in evaluating the priorities and efforts of the Wine Project to continuing making Wikipedia a quality Wine resource on the web.

• A.) What do you think the Wine Project is doing well?
• B.) What can the project improve on?

• A.)
  • I think the project is doing well on two fronts: improving articles on varietals and regions, and in general coordination of efforts. VanTucky ^talk 20:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the project is generally in good shape. Existing articles have a reasonable coverage (although are of very varying quality), there is a reasonable flow of new articles and improvements, and we seem to have a fairly good communication and agreement between the project's active editors. It is definitely not a project that has stagnated, and I definitely enjoy contributing to it! Articles on grape varieties is probably the field in which we do best at the moment. Tomas e (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...and in getting a truckload of wine-related DYKs onto the main page - good PR work! Tomas e (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The project is doing well in: Coordination of efforts trhough the Wine Improvement Drive, tagging wine related articles, working together, keeping up the interest (and raising awareness) through the portal and the newsletter, improving important articles. --Charleenmerced ^Talk 07:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• B.)
  • I know this is a touchy subject, but I think the project needs to collaborate on a group proposal on the notability of wineries. Wineries are a business like any other, and can exploit Wikipedia for advertising purposes. I think it best that people engaged in wine articles and the subject in general be the first to propose an informed policy on wine notability. VanTucky ^talk 20:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the "really big" articles, on countries and broad general wine subjects, are in surprisingly bad shape in comparison to articles on varieties and regions. Many articles in general are not very encyclopedic, and we have many cases of very "sloppy" or incorrect use of terms. The use of categories would in many cases benefit from a cleanup. Also, it would be good to have an agreed wine-specific guide to assigning importance to articles. Tomas e (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that articles on wine regions or countries are in bad shape. --Charleenmerced ^Talk 07:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• C.) Does the Newsletter serve any value?
• D.) What about Portal:Wine?
• E.) Wine Improvement drive?

• C.)
  • I like the newsletter's focus on important current developments in the project, which is sometimes hard to determine from reading the wine project page. I have enjoyed the profiles of various participants too. -Amatulic (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I love the newsletter, it's what makes me stay engaged in the project. VanTucky ^talk 20:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it's fun to get some news on what's happening and a reminder to continue contributing! Tomas e (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I love the newsletter, I look forward to it. It keeps me engaged, it informs everyone of our progress, what is going on and what needs to be done. --Charleenmerced ^Talk 07:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• D.)
  • Honestly, I don't really see the point of the portal. I have never looked at it before today, and I daresay for most folks who come to Wikipedia looking for wine-related information, it wouldn't occur to them to look for a portal either. -Amatulic (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the portal is great opportunity that is being wasted at present. If we made a wine portal template that was prominently featured in project articles, the portal might become a great organizational tool for the project and for readers. Wine is a complex thing, and a place to start like a portal is helpful. VanTucky ^talk 20:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haven't really used it. Probably more people will go to the wine article when they start looking. Tomas e (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I created the first page for the Portal, I am completely and utterly biased. I think it is necessary, it raises the credibility of the project, the awareness and it is a great place to get to info on wine. --Charleenmerced ^Talk 07:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• E.)
  • The wine improvement drive is a good idea to focus wine project member attention on a particular article or subject; however, I have not participated myself because my knowledge is narrow; the best I can do here is improve the article from a formatting perspective. -Amatulic (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great idea, but I have been lax in participating. VanTucky ^talk 20:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a good idea, but doesn't seem to generate that many edits or improvements to the chosen articles. Tomas e (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a great idea, I just wish people would use it more (myself included). --Charleenmerced ^Talk 07:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion should the Wine Project focus more on ....

• F.) Bringing articles up to Feature article status?
• G.) Bringing articles up to Good Article status?
• H.) Bring all Top & High level importance article to B status or higher?
• I.) "Operation stubkiller"-Focus on improving stubs to Start class or better regardless of importance level?

• F.)
  • While having featured articles is a point of pride for any project, the effort spent getting an article into that state has been, in my experience, unrewarding. And in the end, FA is simply a flag that indicates the article met certain standards at some snapshot in time in the past. I don't think this should be the focus of the project. Certainly we can strive to get articles into FA shape, but having an actual FA designation isn't necessary, IMO. -Amatulic (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • FAs should be ignored until we've got a lot more GAs - in terms of the effort needed to get to FA compared to the benefit the casual reader gets from it, I just don't think it's really worth it when you could make say 3 GAs for the same effort. FlagSteward (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the above. It's of course great fun if enthusiasts take the time to bring the favourite article(s) to FA, but as long as we have Top and High articles in the Start category (14 + 131 of them!), it doesn't feel like an optimal allocation of edit time from the project's point of view. Tomas e (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would love to see a couple of articles reach FA, and I think it is important for this project to have at least one. But, for the moment, I think we should focus on improving important articles to GA, or at least B. Regardless, I'm still working on those 2 articles! --Charleenmerced ^Talk 07:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• G.)
  • I feel that Good Article status is a better goal than FA status. Good Articles pretty much have all the information most readers will want, and the GA designation gives confidence in the reliability of the information. -Amatulic (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • GAs should be the main focus of collaboration. As I've said before, it's quite doable for an individual to take an article up to low-to-middling B status, but it gets exponentially difficult after that, you need access to proper references (both wine books and scientific papers), photos, maps, an individual may know nothing about a particular area such as viticulture ("wine" tends to be pretty cross-disciplinary) - it's tough for an individual to get a GA. All credit though to those who have managed it in wine. And I don't think "All Tops to GA within a year" would be such an impossible target. FlagSteward (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This would be my priority 2, the GA level is achievable and still something of a feather in the hat for editors and the project. Tomas e (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, This should be the main focus. We should start by getting all the Tops and HIgh Imp Articles to GA. --Charleenmerced ^Talk 07:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• H.)
  • High level importance articles should definitely be brought to at least B status. I recall Merlot was a stub just a year ago, which I found surprising given the popularity of that varietal. It's much better now. -Amatulic (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - getting Highs to B is as important as Tops to GA (and Mids to Start) - but they're easier than GAs and doable by individuals so I don't think the Project needs to worry too much at this stage when there's so many Top GAs to do. Getting those GAs will be the tough part, see how the High Bs and Mid Starts are left when we only have 2-3 Tops that aren't GA. FlagSteward (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This would be my priority 1, since many of the really big articles (countries, general subjects) are in need of improvement. Tomas e (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Tomas e, it should be priority number 1. We should improve on content first and then on quality. --Charleenmerced ^Talk 07:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I.)
  • I think that in the future we should improve any and all stubs, but for the moment, we should concentrate on Tops, high, mid importance articles. (Unless someone wants to adopt an article of course. --Charleenmerced ^Talk 07:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• J.) How do you feel about the way that the project decides articles of Top Level importance?
• K.) What are your thoughts on various wine templates like Template:Wines, Template:Infobox grape variety, Template:Infobox Wine Region, Template:Infobox Winery, etc ? Are there templates you would like to see?

• J.)
  • It's OK, but we could probably need a procedure on how to de-list Top articles. More importantly, I think the project would benefit from having a guide on how to assign importance levels, with some suggestions on how e.g. countries, regions, smaller geograhpical areas, grape varieties, wineries, wine-related people should (could) be assigned to levels. Right now I feel that there are some inconsistencies, not so much in the Top category as below. Tomas e (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is ok for now, although a general guideline would be good. --Charleenmerced ^Talk 07:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• K.)
  • I think the templates are fine and well thought out. -Amatulic (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm.... it seem's I've used them less than I should have.... Tomas e (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like them. We should try to really implement them all into the articles. --Charleenmerced ^Talk 07:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• L.) What area of Wine coverage is Wikipedia most lacking in? (Ex: Wineries, Wine tasting, Winemaking, Wine bios, Indigenous grape varities, Argentinian wine, Eastern European wines, etc)
• M.) How would you feel about members of the project offering a "bounty" at the Wikipedia:Reward board for Free Use wine images and maps?
• N.) What are your thoughts on the notability of wineries as they relate to WP:CORP and some of the opinions in the essay Wikipedia is not a wine guide? As a corollary, what about various "List of wineries..."?

• L.)
  • If we're happy with stubs I don't think there's any really gaping holes in our coverage. Still, if I should mention a few underpopulated areas it could be regions of countries lacking an "enthusiast editor", and perhaps bios and history of wine-related articles. Tomas e (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless we already have one somewhere, a List of missing wine-related articles might perhaps be a good idea? Tomas e (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My only complaint is as to the state of stubs. I think we have a pretty good coverage. --Charleenmerced ^Talk 07:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• M.)
  • I wasn't aware that the Wikipedia:Reward board existed until now. I think this is a great idea. -Amatulic (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was not aware of this either. What would be offer back? --Charleenmerced ^Talk 07:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• N.)
  • I don't like lists. Wikipedia is not a directory. Anything with "list of wineries" in the subject invites abuse and spamming that will be impossible to control. I have always advocated using categories rather than creating articles with lists. That's what categories are for. Want to see a list of California wineries? Simply go to Category:California wineries and look there. Voila! There's your list. I haven't sought them out, but if I see a "list" article pertaining to wines or wineries, I would propose it for deletion. -Amatulic (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Amatulic here. Lists are a poor idea. As to notability, see my comments at the beginning of the survey. VanTucky ^talk 20:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability of wineries is a bit tricky; I feel it would be more difficult to lay down useful guidelines for this than for e.g. assignment of importance to wine articles. In principle, I'm more worried about non-encyclopedic content (something like "Best chardonnay in four counties, excellent value for money, wonderful location, very pleasant staff, the competent winemaker has embarked on creating an even more stunning cuvée in the next, eagerly awaited vintage") than having a few hundred winery stubs too many chucked into "low" importance. Tomas e (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be too unmanageable. --Charleenmerced ^Talk 07:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a question that you would like ask, feel free to post it here