Talk:Croizet

Logo

Hi, does anyone know how to upload a logo onto the Cognac Croizet page 71.190.187.21 (talk) 04:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Anotherswedding (talk · contribs) 19:59, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 14:03, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Good afternoon, I'll be reviewing this article today. Having looked at your userpage, I appreciate that your efforts are likely focused on Croizet, but it would be respectable if you could review another article at WP:GAN to help the Wikipedia community. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

General comments.

• Article is stable, focused, and broad—the level of detail is excellent. Prose quality is generally high. Images are freely-licensed, relevant, and suitably captioned.
• Sourcing is generally reliable, with a few exceptions:
  • Pitchbook seems to be a data aggregator, I'd suggest replacing it with a higher-quality source.
  • Winesearcher (for example) is a retailer with highly variable information; should be replaced with better sourcing.
• I have some concerns about neutrality:
  • Both tables outlining awards seem unnecessary, the former especially—the most important results at the Paris Universelles are summarised in the preceding paragraph, and many of the other exhibitions listed seem quite minor. Meanwhile, for the second I'd suggest incorporating only the most important awards into article prose (as seems to be already done). We don't really need to know about the minor results.
  • Have there been any critical assessments, published or judged?
  • The article seems a little light on activities or performance since 2008. This may be a sensitive topic considering your position, but if there has been any indication of performance (whether that be over- or under-), change in business operations, or similar, it is encyclopedically suitable information.
• Notes a and b should be integrated smoothly into the article text. The other notes, if retained, need citations.
• I will conduct a source spotcheck when the above issues are looked at. Putting this on hold for now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:03, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the thorough review, AirshipJungleman29. I've worked through your comments and made the following changes; pinging you in case you'd like to take another look.

Sources

• The Pitchbook reference has been removed and replaced with the existing Le Monde (2007) and Moodie Davitt Report citations, both of which independently confirm the 2007 acquisition.
• The Wine-searcher references have been removed entirely. They were tied to the competition results table, which has been converted to prose (see below).

Tables and neutrality

• The historical exhibition awards table has been removed. The Paris 1889 and 1900 results remain in prose as before, and I've added a brief sentence covering the 1878 Paris gold medal and the 1908 London / 1910 Brussels Grand Prix awards, sourced to the Légion d'Honneur dossier.
• The selected competition results table has also been converted to prose, retaining only the most significant awards: the 2017 SFWSC Double Gold / Best in Show — Brandy for the Extra, the 2015 SFWSC Best in Show — Liqueur, the 2011 IWSC Silver / Best in Class, the 2016 CMB Gold, and the 2025 The Spirits Business Design & Packaging Masters Gold for the XO.

Critical assessments

• The Published assessments paragraph has been reframed to make the existing variation in critical reception more visible — Gregory's "Good to very good" for the XO is now noted as sitting below his highest rating, and Pacult's lower three-star rating for the VSOP (against four stars for the other expressions) is more explicitly contrasted.
• I searched Whisky Magazine, Drinks International, Difford's Guide, Drinkhacker and BevX for further critical literature on the brand. Difford's entries are marked "Sample not received — no tasting notes available"; Drinkhacker and BevX coverage is of the separate Léopold Croizet entity (the trademark-dispute defendant in Fins Bois), not Maison Croizet. I couldn't find substantial published critical assessment beyond the relative rankings now noted in the article. Happy to add anything I've missed.

Post-2008 activity

• A new paragraph has been added at the end of Modern era covering Kharon's December 2025 reporting on Croizet Hong Kong Limited (the brand's historical Asian affiliate) and its connection to EU export restrictions on a related entity, Cuvee Importers Limited. Kharon explicitly states that Maison Croizet has no ownership stake in the Hong Kong entities, and the paragraph preserves that distinction. This seemed to be the most substantial recent critical/regulatory reporting on the broader Croizet network.
• Disclosure: I have a conflict of interest on this article as I work for Maison Croizet; this is noted on my user page. Including the Kharon material in full felt like the right move under the circumstances, and I'd welcome a second opinion if you think the framing is off in any direction.

Footnotes

• Notes a and b (records subsequently surpassed) have been integrated into the lead prose.
• Inline citations have been added to the remaining footnotes (Légion d'Honneur dossier for the given names, Société d'Horticulture bulletin for the commission reports, etc.).

Quid pro quo

On your opening request — I'll take on a GA review in the next week or two. I'll post here once I've picked one up.

Thanks again for the careful read. Anotherswedding (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

• @AirshipJungleman29: In case you didn't see the above. Z1720 (talk) 02:18, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I've copyedited one part I felt was unduly promotional; otherwise, all good. I'll do the source spotcheck now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

General comments

This table lists 11 random passages from throughout the article (9.8% of 112 total passages). These passages contain 16 inline citations (11.4% of 140 in the article). Generated with the Veracity user script. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Reference #	Letter	Source	Archive	Status	Notes
the house is particularly noted for its association with Léon Benjamin Croizet (1842–1911), who spearheaded efforts to reconstitute the vineyards of the Cognac region during the phylloxera crisis and was appointed Chevalier of the Legion of Honour in 1902.
3	a	leonore.archives-nationales.c…			Assuming this is only for the bit after the comma, all is verified; that said, "association" somewhat undersells that he was the head of the firm, and I'd rephrase this.
Notably, the commission reported that Folle blanche—a historic grape variety essential for fine cognac—thrived on the reconstituted estate, describing a half-hectare of old Folle blanche vines on American rootstocks as being of "admirable beauty" (« d'une beauté admirable »).
17	d	google.fr			I can't see the bit in question; can you provide a quote to me?
Gregory (1997) recorded that part of the house's pre-phylloxera reserve stock had been given as a dowry on this marriage.
20	b	Gregory 1997.			I can't access Gregory 1997; could you please provide a quote?
In the following generation, Pierre Léon Jean Eymard (born 1894), eldest son of Pierre Jean and Léonie, married Marie Jacqueline Camus (1902–1984), daughter of Gaston Camus (1865–1945) of the Camus cognac house—connecting the Croizet, Eymard, and Camus families.
21	b	ancestry.com			Ancestry.com is not a RS and should be removed from the article; apologies, I should have noticed this earlier.
22	a	data.gouv.fr			I can't see the bit in question; can you provide a quote to me?
The transaction was widely noted in the trade press as the first significant acquisition of a cognac house by a Russian investor.
4	b	lemonde.fr			The link takes me to the main "Economy" page; you may wish to provide an archive-url parameter.
5	c	moodiedavittreport.com			"...first significant acquisition of a Cognac house by a Russian investor" is plagiarised directly from the source.
Croizet's vineyards are situated in the Grande Champagne cru, the innermost of the six designated growing areas of the Cognac appellation. Grande Champagne is characterised by a subsoil rich in Cretaceous chalk and limestone; the region's geology dates primarily to the Campanian and Santonian stages of the Late Cretaceous.
10	b	cognac.fr			The link reaches an error page; you may wish to provide an archive-url parameter.
11	b	pierre-et-carriers.haute-sain…			Some verifies, but the source specifically says upper Turonian, not Campanian and Santonian.
Gregory (1997) described the property as encompassing 88.9 acres and noted that it had formerly been a hunting lodge associated with the Duke of Montmorency-Bouteville.
20	i	Gregory 1997.			I can't access Gregory 1997; could you please provide a quote?
Most commercial cognac is sold as a blend of eaux-de-vie from multiple harvest years, classified by minimum age designations such as VS, VSOP, and XO. Vintage cognac (cognac millésimé), by contrast, is produced entirely from the distillation of grapes harvested in a single year.
43	a	shop.cognatheque.com			"classified by minimum age designations such as VS, VSOP, and XO" not verified
Several expressions hold kosher certification from the Badatz Chug Chatam Sofer of Bnei Brak.
48		תעודת כשרות — SAS Cognac Croizet [Kashrut Certificate — SAS Cognac Croizet] (in Hebrew). Bnei Brak:…			I can't access the source; could you please provide a quote?
The sale was certified by Guinness World Records as the most expensive cognac sold at auction.
45	c	scmp.com			The link reaches an error page; you may wish to provide an archive-url parameter.
54		paulfrasercollectibles.com			The link reaches the home page; you may wish to provide an archive-url parameter.
55		huffpost.com
Joseph Scott and Donald Bain's The World's Best Bartender's Guide (1998) states that Winston Churchill and Dwight D. Eisenhower shared a bottle of Croizet 1858 cognac during the Second World War; the book provides no date or primary source for this claim.
68		Scott, Joseph; Bain, Donald (1998). The World's Best Bartender's Guide. HP Books / Penguin. p. 46. …			I can't access the source; could you please provide a quote?

A significant number of issues which need addressing Anotherswedding. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Anotherswedding, have you seen the above? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:32, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I’ll respond to all the questions and make the necessary changes soon. Thank you for your patience. ~~ Anotherswedding (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

This has been on review for considerably more than a month now, and as no improvements have been made in three weeks I am failing this now. Feel free to contact me upon a renomination. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:27, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.