Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Coffee/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 04:16, 23 October 2007.

Coffee[edit]

previous FAC

Self-nom:This article has been improved since its past two FA nominations. It is currently at GA status. --Jude. 22:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object: The image Image:Coffee roasting grades.png has no source. The Commons version says it's from the Japanese Wikipedia, but there's no sign of where the Japanese Wikipedia got it from. --Carnildo 23:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is now sourced. -Jude. 02:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks easily replaceable know anyone that can make svgs? -Ravedave 00:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Should Template:Infobox Beverage be added? -Ravedave 00:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added it. Not all of the criteria match up exactly to coffee (such as "manufacturer"), but I think it's fine.--Jude. 19:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I haven't got time now but all the 1-3 sentence stubby paras (of which there are a few) should be appended onto other paras. Will look later but thought I'd drop this one in now. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Great job. Oppose: Good article. I enjoyed reading it and learned a lot. But I cannot endorse its promotion until a few things are resolved. Of the four featured article criteria, I recommend addressing the following:
1. Basic criteria met?:
1a. Well written?
  • "and flavor develops" - should be "and the flavor develops" Done
  • "current opinion consensus" - redundant just say "current consensus" Done
  • "but early forms date" - due to previous use of the word early, it should read "but earliest forms of the word date" (I thought "of the word" should be added for clarity) Done
  • "Britain had temporarily cut off" - remove had  Done
  • "When the fermentation is finished the beans" - put a comma after "finished" Done
  • "current train of though" - "current train of thought"  Done
1b. Comprehensive?
  • I would include a brief description (a couple phrases or a sentence) of what sun cultivation is. Done
  • "though "whole-bean" coffee that is ground at home is becoming more popular." This statement is just kind of floating out there without qualification. Is this becoming more popular in Switzerland? Ghana? the Dominican Republic? Also what is more popular? 5 percent more? 10 percent? 80 percent? Another point - this statement will become dated quickly, so it should clarified when this true, like "During the 2000s home grinding became more popular in North America". Also there is no reference for this assertion.
  • I couldn't find any reference for its "growing popularity", so I changed it to read "...though "whole-bean" coffee can be ground at home." Is that all right?--Jude. 21:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the bottom of the subheading "Preparation", I thought it might be good to quickly mention the bottled ice-coffees that are popular in North America (most notably Starbucks frappuccinos) Done
1c. Factually accurate? In particular the references look fantastic.
1d. Neutral? Yes
1e. Stable? Yes
2. Complies with Manual of style and relevant WikiProjects?:
2a. Concise lead section? Yes
2b. Hierarchical headings? Yes
2c. Well-structured table of contents? Yes
2d. Consistently-formatted inline citations? Yes
3. Properly placed, captioned and/or rationalized images?: Yes
4. Appropriate length?: Yes

When these issues are addressed, note the changes here and notify me on my talk page. Thank you for your work so far. — Esprit15d 13:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I agree, that infobox should be added and you should probably get some proofreading done. - Mgm|(talk) 18:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - great read, comprehensive and tightly written. I only noted a couple of minor things and neither are deal-breakers. In the last big of preparation I didn't see any mention of iced coffee. Also there are concerns in Australia that coffee can be an environmental weed in the northern part of the country though I guess that can go in the biology article. But anyway, yer there. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added iced coffee to the preparation section, and I think the fact that it may be regarded as a weed would fit better in the biology article. Thanks for your support! Cheers, Jude. 23:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • After reading this article, my first reaction was that it should be featured. Overall, it is well written, crisp and compact: worthy of an encyclopedia article.BroMonque 13:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There's a lot of interesting content here; however, some sections seem inadequate and poorly referenced, especially preparation, for which the major reference is a self-published FAQ. Many popular coffee drinks aren't even mentioned, most obviously cappuccino. The lead needs some expansion to summarise all aspects of the subject; at the moment it doesn't even mention caffeine. Much of the article also feels extremely American centric from a European viewpoint, and the US is hardly known for the quality of its coffee! Espresso Addict 01:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added a number of references to the preparation section and also added a section on presentation of the coffee, which includes cappuccino. What else needs to be done? --Jude. 18:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, that is an improvement. The preparation section still feels to me very thin compared with the others. I would have thought it might benefit from splitting into subsections for grinding, 'brewing' (see note below), and presentation, with presentation perhaps being a top-level heading, and the sections for 'brewing' & presentation need significant expansion. All the common ways in which coffee is drunk should at least be name checked. By the way, 'brew', at least in UK English usage, is never used for coffee! With the possible exception of Turkish coffee, it's an inaccurate description of the preparation process. The article needs a careful combing through for American usages such as 'French press' (for cafetière) and 'drip' (for filter or more rarely percolator); they at least need explaining at first mention. As a minor point, why is tea a related drink in the info box? They're no more related than coffee and any other hot drink. There are many other minor points (eg unreferenced and vague statements) which would prevent me from supporting this article's promotion at this time. Espresso Addict 19:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I expanded the "methods" in the preparation section and placed "presentation" in its own subsection. What specifically needs to be expanded or needs to mentioned? As far as name-checking common ways of drinking coffee, what would you call "the common ways in which coffee is drunk"? Because I assume that it would vary depending on location. If you tell me specific ways of drinking it that need to be mentioned, I can add them, though. What word would you use instead of "brew"? I could just refer to them as ways or methods of making coffee, if that's any better. And I removed tea from the infobox. --Jude. 21:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I believe that I have addressed all of your objections so far. Is there anything else that needs to be done? Jude. 02:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Very good job indeed, with a small caveat. Call me picky, but I do not particularly like the mentioning of company and brand names (Starbucks in this case) in the articles, where it is not utterly necessary. Even though the share of the company in the US market for canned coffee is indeed notable, it is more suitable (if necessary at all) for 'Canned coffee' or 'Economics of coffee' article imo, and certainly doesn't contribute to a worldwide coverage of the subject. I don't have anything against Starbucks, it just stands out as non-essential and possibly advertising. Not nice. --Gimlei (talk to me) 07:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the mention of Starbucks. --Jude. 17:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ookay, I finally got down to reading the article more thoroughly, and I have to admit it does have quite a lot of room for improvement. Here are some of my points:
  • Lead:
  • I am not a native speaker, but in order to create the beverage coffee. doesn't sound right to me, correct me if this is just me. Done
  • banned in Ottoman Turkey - can we expand this maybe just in a couple of words, why was it banned? Done
  • Can we get the references for the forecasts? Done
  • Health studies need be referenced as well. Done
  • Etymology:
  • Can we get references for the dates please? Done
  • Roasting:
  • The 2nd paragraph doesn't flow well to my taste - copyedit would be veeery handy. Done
  • Decaffeination - expand a little, how is it done and why? Done
  • Preparation:
  • used for certain types of coffee - which types? Done
  • The sentence with 'The most common grinds are...' also doesn't flow imho. Done
  • 'Canned coffee is a beverage' - what kind of beverage? Is it just regular espresso or americano brewed and put into cans, or something else? Done
  • Social aspects:
  • 'The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' is repeated twice - replacing the section mentioning with 'Church' or simply 'organisation' should be sufficient. Done
  • Economics:
  • The last sentence doesn't make any point - needs to be either expanded, moved or deleted altogether. Done
  • Generally:
  • There is very little information on the varieties and blends of coffees - maybe some information from the Coffee varietals article can be incorporated here. Done
  • Some parts of the article are poorly referenced. There is a very valid fact tag outstanding, and generally facts need be sourced better. Also, for existing book references, it is necessary to provide page numbers - i.e. ref 15.
  • I took care of the fact tag. What needs to be sourced better?--Jude. 19:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • References seem to have much improved, I withdraw this comment. Thanks! --Gimlei (talk to me) 06:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I refuse to support the nomination without a proper copyedit - there are typos (mostly missing spaces between references and following text), and some paragraphs just don't flow: word repetition, sentences without proper endings, etc. I will give examples further below. A native speaker would of course be best, unfortunately my knowledge of English is not adequate for the purpose.
  • I fixed the missing spaces after the refs. Jude. 15:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! I've added it to the list to be copyedited, I'm not sure how long it will take, since they seem to have a bit of a backlog.--Jude. 21:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am watching the page and would be very happy to see the issues addressed. It's a very good article already as it is, thanks for your work! --Gimlei (talk to me) 15:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I'd agree about leaving Starbucks off the page - it's a pretty notable worldwide coffee chain and integral to any discussion about franchised coffee outlets. However, it ain't a deal breaker for me.
I could not agree more that in a discussion about franchised coffee outlets, Starbucks is absolutely vital. However, the discussion here is about coffee and the various coffee beverages, not coffee shops. If you really really insist, I guess we could incorporate it somewhere into the article, but I'd rather leave it out. --Gimlei (talk to me) 06:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I only mentioned it with bottled coffee drinks because Starbucks is the only major retailer of bottled coffee in the US, but I don't want to give the appearance of advertising for any particular brand. (or of US-centrism, for that matter)--Jude. 21:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Too many refs in the lead. The lead should be a summary of the body, not full of details that need refs. Details should be in the body.Sumoeagle179 22:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is the objection due to just the refs, or do you think that there is too much detail in the lead? WP:LEAD does say that the lead "should be carefully sourced as appropriate". For instance, the line "Today, coffee is one of the most popular beverages worldwide." needs to be sourced because it is a statistic, but it isn't an overly detailed statement; it provides context. There are facts that I can take out, such as the "6.7 million tons" of coffee and the specific economics figures, if that sort of thing is the issue. --Jude. 23:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the lead is a summary, the detail will be in the body, which is then where the refs will go. Do agree that sometimes this won't work. For this article, the info on color and roasting of beans is a detail that should be in the body, it doesn't summarize anything. Most of the second para is a how-to/how-its-done. On the medical stuff, as this is in the body too, the lead stmt on it would be summary and the ref in the body with the detail. You could probably add some more summary to the lead too. Sumoeagle179 11:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cut down on the description in the lead, particularly on the processing part. I cut down the medical information to one sentence, which remains referenced, since I was told to reference it earlier in this review. The caffeine statistic, the economics claim, and the popularity statistic are referenced, since they're all data and statistics, which have to be cited whenever they appear. I left the two sentences about the origin of coffee and its spread to Europe and the Americas referenced, but I can remove them if you insist. I also changed the lead to three paragraphs rather than four. Cheers, Jude. 13:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wording could be tightened, easily. Examples abound of useless phrases and words like "very", "there are", "currently", and "it is". Overall, however, excellent work. --Spangineerws (háblame) 00:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Poorly written indeed. The lead is a microcosm of problems throughout.

  • The information under the quite attractive top image is useless and/or redundant. Hot beverage: really? Colour: dark brown? Manufacturer: varied? Get rid of it and put the 800 AD into the main text. Done
    • Final period inconsistent in incomplete-sentence captions. MOS says don't use the period. Done
  • "Widely-consumed"—not a good start: see MOS on hyphens. And "commonly-grown". Done
  • the beans (first sentence). Done
  • "Ethiopia. From Ethiopia". Done
  • "beans ... beans ... beans ... beans ... beans ..."—and are the "berries" different? It's confusing and repetitive. Done
  • "surrounding" environment: unclear—isn't the environment always "surrounding". Do you mean "immediately surrounding"? Be specific, though. Done
  • "It was banned in Ottoman Turkey in the 17th century for political reasons and was associated with rebellious political activities in Europe." A comma would aid the readers after "reasons", wouldn't it? Done
  • Ideas poorly integrated into sentence: "The health effects of coffee are disputed and many studies have examined the relationship between coffee consumption and certain medical conditions." Done
  • "The majority of all caffeine consumed worldwide comes from coffee." That's like saying "the majority of water". Done Tony (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No

  • Does not fulfill 1a. Well written among others.
  • "The majority of all caffeine consumed worldwide comes from coffee." That's one hell of a claim. "In some countries, this figure is as high as 85%." That's in some countries, not worldwide. Seems like whoever wrote this part had agendas. Done
  • "and the seeds—usually called beans—are ferm" should be "and the seeds, usually called beans, are ferm..." Overuse of hyphens in certain areas. Ridiculous. Done
  • Not ready. Learnedo 22:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, these were examples of why the whole piece needs the attention of copy-editors throughout. Don't just fix these examples, and the big green ticks impress no one, and if they make the nominator feel good, that's a bad signal. Tony (talk) 14:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The page is currently being copyedited by the League of Copyeditors. I didn't intend to upset or offend you with the tick marks, and if I did, I apologise. --Jude. 18:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Coffee/archive2&oldid=1109752938"