Talk:Cesanese Comune

Choice of images

Agne27 said "Pictures of people mentioned in the article are relevant. Plus being a rare grape, free use pictures to use for illustrations are scarce" (in the edit summary of his reversion of my removal of this image). Nevertheless, I don't think that File:Savanna Samson DSC 1095.JPG adds significant value to the article. The person pictured there is already wikilinked by name, and her article includes that picture. She is the owner of a (very minor) brand of wine that happens to use this grape. The picture used doesn't even have anything to do with her winemaking enterprise—it's her at a video award ceremony. That's pretty much the definition of an irrelevant photograph in this context.

Even if images related to this rare grape are scarce, that's still not a good reason to use a picture with minuscule relevance. And it should be pretty evident that the blanket statement that a mention in the article is enough to warrant inclusion of her photograph doesn't stand up to scrutiny. TheFeds 06:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll be honest, as a feminist, I don't care for Samson and what she stands for and I was literally cringing when I realized that her work in the wine industry was more than just a gimmick but actually notable. But as someone in the wine world, I can not discount the fact that the only reason this obscure wine grape has been in the news in the last 100 years was because of Samson's involvement. I'm not sure how familiar you are with wine, but wine grapes do not receive mainstream public press like what Cesanese got with Samson's wine. It just doesn't happen. If she made her wine with Cabernet Sauvignon, Sangiovese, Syrah,Zinfandel or any several dozen truly notable grape varieties--I would be fighting tooth and nail against any inclusion of her, her wine and certainly any photos of her because they would be basically trivia. But never, in all my years in the wine world, have I ever seen a grape plucked from such obscurity as what happened in the last 3 years with Cesanese. So yes, sadly, Savanna Samson deserves mention in this article and, yes, it is proper to include illustrations of people and places mentioned in an article. You see it all the time in other articles. Take the History of Champagne. We have several images of various people who have some connection to the narrative of the article, such as Philippe II, Duke of Orléans who helped popularize Champagne among the French nobility. Now the picture that we have of Philippe II doesn't show him drinking Champagne only because there is no free use image of that available. Would you honestly argue that we shouldn't have any illustration of Philippe II in the History of Champagne article because he A.) already wikilinked by name, and the article includes pictures and B.) the picture used doesn't even have anything to do with him enjoying Champagne? Would you honestly think that is " pretty much the definition of an irrelevant photograph" in that context? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 07:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess the real question is, was Samson's use of this grape so notable as to merit special recognition of her in the article? After all, thousands of people have made wine, but only a few of them could reasonably be said to have made a significant enough contribution to the notoriety of a particular variety to be featured in this way. If you're correct that she was responsible for a vast and unusual level of publicity for this particular grape, then I would concede that this is justified—that would make her a seminal figure in the history of this wine grape. The article doesn't indicate this special status—it only mentions that she used Cesanese, without stating (as you did above), that her selection of this grape was the most significant event in the last century of this grape's history. (Is there a source we can cite for that assessment, so as to include it in the article?)

My reaction was maybe a little harsh, given that I assumed that she was only one producer, and of no special notability. For example, in the context of the Champagne article, it's akin to the difference between including a picture of Phillipe II and including a picture of some random viticulturist who happened to use Champagne grapes.

There are also more stylistic questions: is such a prominent photograph (of any person) appropriate in this relatively short article? The Champagne article is better-developed and more comprehensive, and it does manage to include pictures without the choice of images seeming a little incongruous. If the picture of her was, for example, taken at the opening of a winery, then at least the contextual value of the photograph would be improved. Right now, it really only serves to identify her. I think it's clear that the value of this photograph (in this article) is lower than a hypothetical one featuring Samson in a wine-related activity. (I grant that free images are scarce—but we do still have to be somewhat selective.)

With regard to my own comments, I made reference to the fact that her article was already wikilinked because her article also contains that same picture—a reader looking to identify Samson would be able to follow that link to receive the same information. TheFeds 17:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cesanese Comune. 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/20110717053901/http://www.tidingsmag.com/features/curves-of-the-bottle.html to http://www.tidingsmag.com/features/curves-of-the-bottle.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 18:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)