Talk:Maraba Coffee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maraba Coffee is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

Maraba Coffee has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

An entry from Maraba Coffee appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 11 June 2006.

++Lar: t/c 02:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Cody edits 2 Lead 3 restructuring 4 Promotional language

[edit] Cody edits

In order for this article to reach FA status, it needs a thorough copy edit. It pretty much meets all other requirements of a FA. I've done some, but could somebody unfamiliar with the text and interested in the topic do a full copy edit? Jaw101ie 21:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

The recent edits to the lead take it a little too far; now it doesn't conform to WP:LEAD anymore. We really need a two or three paragraph lead, and I think there was nothing wrong with it. — mark ✎ 14:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, though at least it illustrated that it could be reduced. I have had a go at removing some of the redundancy and summarizing more - using the image at right as the thumbnail for how long the text should be. I just got edit conflicted and think I missed merging some edits so I'll go do that now. - BT 15:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] restructuring

I took another look at PFHLai's edits after my edit conflict mentioned above. I disagree with moving the "recent developments" out of the history second level header. The thematic division works quite well in this article. I can see the logic of moving the Geographic section right after the lead, but would assume that a reader would want to get into details of the coffee production right away and wait for the context. In any case, I have left that edit (and hopefully didn't miss anything else major when I went back) and would appreciate further comments. - BT 15:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I also feel it would be better to have the history section first; it just seems to flow better that way. — mark ✎ 16:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

History before Geography seems to be the norm for most articles about countries, towns etc. although admittedly this is a slightly different category from that. Re the location of the coffee beer, I agree that in its present form there's not enough non-history to merit pulling it out of that section right now. Quadell has requested more detail on the coffee itself, how it is rated, whether there are any reviews etc. which might warrant a new section. So far I've only found the 'flavour guide' from Union, detailing the body, aroma, and the citrus/chocolate tones (which are already mentioned in History) and this review page for the coffee beer... Most google references for Maraba are articles focusing on the cooperative rather than the coffee. SteveRwanda 16:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response. I didn't see this earlier.

Perhaps I should explain my earlier edits. I indeed prefer geography ahead of history, as coffee is a plant and it makes sense (to me) to start with the conditions in which the plant is grown and cultivated. Moreover, the contents in the history section don't seem to me as much "history" (only a few years) as they are about "who work on the cultivation". Hence, I changed the section heading to "Abahuzamugambi cooperative". And I also thought the flow would be better for the section on the production cycle (of the main product) to be followed by "Recent developments" (of related products) and then a list of "Other Products".

The current structure works, just that I thought my version flows better. However, it's not a strong preference of mine. If most contributors prefer the current structure, let's keep it the way it is. --PFHLai 18:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Promotional language

I don't think the sentence about Union doing a quality test and reporting that they were "able to identify clear, clean citrus notes and sweet milk chocolate low-tones" qualifies as promotional language. To the contrary, it seems to me that a description of the taste and aroma is very relevant to an article on a coffee. So I disagree with its deletion. — mark ✎ 12:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear... this is becoming complicated! Sandy feels that mention of the specific companies (and hence, presumably, their opinions) should be removed... I'm already struggling to remove refs to Community since that paragraph doesn't hang together without them being specifically named.

I was wondering about moving the citrus-notes stuff into a mini-section with a guide to the coffee and maybe reviews (this was requested somewhere but I can't really find any, other than Union's assessment and the one from the brewery). Do you broadly agree with the simplification of the rest of the text? SteveRwanda 13:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Broadly, yes. Your last few edits do remove a lot of clutter that is not absolutely essential, so in that sense they are improvements. I think I do not agree with Sandy on all points, however; on my first read of this article the language didn't at all strike me as 'promotional'. It just reports the story of the development of a Rwandan coffee, a story which happens to be a successful one. — mark ✎ 13:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I agree with Mark. There is no reason to not give the names of the companies involved; in fact, the article is not comprehensive without this information. — BrianSmithson 13:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've now restored names and comments by respective companies to the text per the above comments. References to specific people have been removed (apart from Paul Kagame and Carin Jamtin, who have articles independent of this article and are hence, presumably, notable. I've removed the 300% increase from the lead but have left in the genocide ref (with citation) as I consider this important in establishing the context of the foundation of the cooperative, not just a promotional tool. If anyone's looking here, please give your opinions on the current state. I'll check with Sandy later as well. SteveRwanda 14:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I had another go at the lead. Sandy's point appears to me to relate to the general nature of the statement "improved the lives of growers" coupled with an aside, rather than doubt about the nature of the genocide. I have reworded for less sweeping phrasing but, as the genocide was clearly a major factor in the development of the business, I think it merits inclusion. BTW, I also agree that the foreign importers should be included. That would be like The Coca-Cola Company article refusing to disclose its major brands. - BT 15:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)