Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Maraba Coffee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Maraba Coffee

Self-nomination — This is an article I've been working on for some time, including personal visits to the growing sites (and drinking the coffee every day!) The article has had a peer review, and I've attempted to answer all points raised there. Cheers — SteveRwanda 14:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. I must admit I've never tried the coffee, but this article is as strong as I like my coffee, and a delightful read too. Solidly referenced, good overall structure, many pictures: I think Maraba Coffee exemplifies the best of Wikipedia. — mark ✎ 15:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Full disclosure: I have offered suggestions and done some tidying, but have not made substantial edits to this article. I find it to be a tasty blend <insert groan here> of geographic, social, organizational and business elements in a manner that many of our articles on organizations could benefit from imitating. - BT 16:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - A very well-structured article. The topic is very interesting in terms of the importance of Fair trade movement re Africa. Good work Steve. -- Szvest 16:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign
  • Support w/ extra cream and sugar (perhaps if we beat this horse to death in first four posts no one else will bother).--gozar 16:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. A well-thought out & readable article -- & also provides a useful example for the writing of similar articles. I noticed several minor blemishes (e.g., a few copy edit issues, is there an article currently/proposed for the "Maraba area" of Rwanda?) nature that could be fixed, but none that should in good faith prevent this article from being judged worthy of FA status. -- llywrch 16:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks great. Top notch. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Whoah, wait a minute. Now the lead section is one sentence. What happened? WP:LEDE says a lead section "should contain several paragraphs, depending on the length of the article, and should provide an overview of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable, and including a mention of its notable controversies, if there are any." I'll work on re-creating a solid lead. Also, there is a lot of info about the coop, the growing, the commodity, etc., but very little about the coffee itself. Is there a review you can find? Lastly, I'll be copy-editing, so hopefully that will fix some of the objections below. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Okay, the lead is good. I have also copyedited it, and I think the prose is now up to snuff. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Striking object. Sandy 23:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC) The article is referenced and well organized, but there are prose issues. Here are some random samples indicating the problems throughout:
    • (Pull out of providing support is awkward): Beginning in 2003, PEARL began to pull out of providing support for the Abahuzamugambi Cooperative, as it felt the operation had become self-sufficient.
    • (Redudancy example): The cooperative was able to provide(d) its growers with loans, leading to vastly (that helped) improved living standards - they were able to afford medical insurance for their families, send their children to school, improve their homes and invest in livestock., (and allowed for livestock investments, affordable medical insurance and education).
    • (Another redundancy example): The beer contains the same caffeine content as a cup of coffee.
    • In late 2004, the Maraba coffee phenomenon was extended into the alcoholic beverages market, in the form of a coffee beer. In late 2004, the Maraba coffee phenomenon was extended into the alcoholic beverages market, in the form of a coffee beer. The London-based Meantime Brewery came up with the idea, intended as a form of iced cappucino or digestif, but with alcohol content. (Perhaps, Maraba coffee entered the alchoholic beverages market, with a coffee beer, based on an idea from the London-based Meantime Brewery.)
    • In 2006, the Swedish Minister for Development Co-operation and Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, Carin Jamtin, visited Maraba with a view to extending cooperation between Sweden and the Rwandan farmers and ultimately exposinge Maraba coffee to the Swedish speciality market.
I believe all of these sections have been fixed, along with a general copyedit by me. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not as good at analyzing prose problems or correcting them as other reviewers here. Others should have a look: the prose needs polishing, and a thorough copy edit by someone not close to the subject matter is needed. Sandy 17:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    Is there any channel by which one can request such a copy-edit from experienced Wikipedians? I can't really take action on this objection myself as I wrote the text in the first place, and it reflects the way I use the English language. I see several changes have already been made but I don't know if those answer this objection yet. Cheers — SteveRwanda 10:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    Done. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Back for a second look (curious about why Quadell removed one of my previous comments, but not going to worry about it). I share Peta's concerns. I started into the article, correcting a few minor things I found, but continue to see large problems:
      • (Grammar? Also, since we don't find reference or context about the genocide in the article, it's not clear why this is raised in the lead. The lead should summarize the article. The fact that many lost family members to the genocide also requires a cite, which I didn't encounter in the text.) The cooperative and the business they have developed has improved the lives of growers in the area—many of whom lost family members in the 1994 Rwandan Genocide—and allowed for livestock investments, affordable medical insurance, and improved education.
        There was a reference to the fact that many were members of AVEGA, but I've now added one to the second paragraphs in Origins, along with a reference. The sentence probably needs copyediting of course, as I seem to have forgotten how to communicate in my three years abroad... SteveRwanda 12:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
        Grammar issue fixed. SteveRwanda 18:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
      • (Why is the lead - which is supposed to be compelling and brilliant and enticing us to read the article - telling us how coffee is routinely harvested, washed, and sorted ? Isn't that standard fare? What is special about this coffee?)The fruit is handpicked, mostly during the rainy season between March and May, and brought to a washing station in Maraba where the coffee beans are extracted and dried. At several stages of this process, the beans are sorted according to quality.
        The fact that it is handpicked and during the rainy season is particular to Rwanda... It's possible the latter part could be chopped from the Lede but personally I think it's OK to include some information that's duplicated in more generic articles - msot people won't know the details of coffee processing and shouldn't necessarily have to keep navigating away just to find out those details as they apply to Maraba. SteveRwanda 12:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
      • (Prose problems still.) The UNR entered into a partnership with the district for that reason, and the next year founded the Partnership for Enhancing Agriculture in Rwanda was founded through Linkages (PEARL).
        Fixed. SteveRwanda 18:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
      • (Punctuation problems still.) paying an above-average US$3 per kilogramme,[7].
        Fixed. SteveRwanda 12:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Much better, but I'd like to see these issues, and Peta's, addressed. Sandy 20:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Back for another look: I'm prepared to support if a few minor things can be addressed.
        • Can you eliminate details from the lead that scream for an inline citation, and deal with them in the body of the article? That will make for a more succinct lead, and will be less distracting to the reader. I dislike seeing very specific details in the lead which demand a cite, because then I go looking for them. Can you change:
          • "The cooperative has improved the lives of growers in the area—many of whom lost family members in the 1994 Rwandan Genocide—by increasing coffee quality and penetrating the speciality market." to "The cooperative has improved the lives of growers in the area by increasing coffee quality and penetrating the speciality market." and then deal with the Genocide statement directly in the text?
          • Same here - I don't find the 300% in the text, so lose time looking for source. Can you fix it by changing, "Farmers' revenues have increased by 300%, allowing for livestock investments, affordable medical insurance, and improved education." to "Farmers' revenues have increased, allowing for livestock investments, affordable medical insurance, and improved education." and then specifically deal with the 300% in the body of the article? Too much detail in the lead can be distracting. Alternately, if you don't want to delete those specific details from the lead, I suggest citing them in the lead.
        • This person is not notable - do we need his name? Also, again, too much detail is an example of what makes the article read like an advert. The need is to avoid having the article sound like an advert for Community Coffee. Can you change, "PEARL brought Sam Olivieri, a speciality coffee expert, to Rwanda to find a suitable market for Maraba. He put them in touch with Community Coffee, an American seller based in Baton Rouge, Louisiana." Can you change that to, "PEARL brought a specialty coffee expert to Rwanda, who put them in touch with a seller based in Louisiana to help market Maraba." Some work along those lines is needed to reflect the concerns both Peta and I have. There is more of that in the article. Besides all the non-notable individual names in that section, here's another example: "Maraba currently produces 80 short tons (73,000 kg) of export-quality coffee per year, of which 40 tons go to Union Coffee Roasters, 20 tons to Community Coffee, 10 tons to Intelligentsia Coffee & Tea in Chicago, USA, 5 tons to Mercanta Coffee in London, and 5 tons to InterAmerican. Mercanta distributes to small European roasters, and InterAmerican sells to small US roasters.[13]" It would be more encyclopedic if you just told us which countries the coffee went to, without mentioning specific countries. companies. The article still reads like promotional material. Consider a print encyclopedia: wouldn't a reader by very confused if they came across the article in hard print ten years from now, and found mentions of these non-notable names and companies? If you can reduce the promotional feel of the article, I'll support. I also feel like the genocide mention in the lead feels like a promotional/marketing tool.
      • These few things just don't give the article an encyclopedi tone: I do hope they can be fixed. Sandy 17:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
        OK, dealing with your various points:
        • Lead - I think the genocide reference is important to set the context for the founding of the cooperative, it's not just a marketing tool. I tried referencing it as was, but BanyanTree has subsequently reworded it and removed the cite again. Don't know what you think about that. The 300% reference is gone.
        • Promotional tone in the article - I've removed all references to non-noteworthy people and cut down various other weasel sentences, as required. I tried chopping the names of the overseas companies but it meant the paragraphs didn't hang together, and was also opposed by other users (see Talk:Maraba Coffee for these discussions). The output tonnage has been reduced to country-by-country and moved to the Products section to try to give it more relevance.
        Cheers — SteveRwanda 17:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Final look. You all have done very nice work and have a fine article, but as long as it reads like promotional material, I'm going to have to pass on voting to feature the article. The current lead reads exceptionally well, feeling like a well-written marketing brochure :-) Wiki is an encyclopedia, and we have to avoid sounding like marketing material or opening that door to future featured articles. Best, Sandy 17:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
          • As I noted on the talk page, the article gives background information on the development of a Rwandan brand of coffee, a story which happens to be a successful one. I don't see why we can't report what reliable sources say about the successful introduction of Maraba Coffee on the market, and about regional effects of this success. If the launch of the product would have failed miserably surely we should cover that failure; conversely, if it happens to be successful, surely we should report on that. However, I don't think I can convince you, so I'm happy if we can agree to disagree. On a sidenote, could you maybe strike the objections of yours that have been adressed to your satisfaction? That way it will be easier to see what remains to be done. — mark ✎ 17:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - While I don't have heart to oppose, because the artcle is very good and interesting, I have some problems with the lead, that I feel is far too long, especially for a not very long article. I feel the lead should be made shorter and more concise. And also a bit of polishing for the prose, like noted by Sandy, would be useful.--Aldux 17:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Lead is fixed, article is now copyedited. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I've been to this coffee cooperative in Rwanda, and I have to support this article because it does a great job of capturing everything that Maraba is about. --Kylan 18:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Object as per Sandy's objections above. The prose is not compelling and at times, quite poor. It needs a copy edit at once.
    Also supporting an article because it captures the feel of a place is not valid reason. Jaw101ie 21:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I've done some copy edits up until "Geography and Climate" but more needs to be done.
I've finished. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
After another look, I feel the need to change to support. However, I do feel that taking up Sandy's recent suggestions will not be to the detrement of the article. Please do so. Jaw101ie 21:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object reads like literature straight from the organisation; although the product is admirable the authors POV should not be detectable in the text. It needs a copyedit, there is a lot of redundant and promotional language. Plant names should be in italics. The lead is not a summary of the content, and as someone pointed out abouve is too long. Fair use images don't have rationales, and the one in the article adds very little to the article and is of questionable fair use anyway.--Peta 06:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    Responses to this:
    • Plant names now italicised.
    • Fair use image - removed.
    • Copy editing - where can I request it? (see comment above)
    • "Promotional language" - can you point to specific examples? It may seem POV to say the coffee has improved people's lives and is well regarded etc, but these are essentially facts and the references back those up.
    • The lead - it seems like a summary of the article to me. There's a paragraph roughly corresponding to the History section, another corresponding to the Production cycle and the final one detailing customers etc. I expanded it up to three paragraphs during peer review as with around 16-20 thousand characters it seemed to be a 'medium sized' article per WP:LEDE. Some reduction has already been done... is this enough?
    Cheers for the reviews, and please dive in and make appropriate changes rather than listing them here - it saves time! SteveRwanda 10:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I removed the few POV wording bits I could find. I think it's reasonably neutral. All your other concerns have been addressed, I believe. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The tone still bothers me, phrases like, "the Maraba coffee phenomenon", and "keen interest" don't belong in an encyclopedia article. At the start of the article it claims they were getting paid 33c a kilo, it went up to 75c a kilo - the article does not address whether this increase has been significant enough to improve the living standards of the farmers.--Peta 23:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    I've gone through the article trying to remove such unencyclopaedic phrases, and rejigging the grammar and sentence structure as well. Have also added a sentence following the 75 cents, addressing the health and education issue with a reference to the PEARL graph which indicates exactly that. Hope this helps. Cheers — SteveRwanda 17:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    The lead also stil needs work, it is overly specific and too long, Sandy made some helpful comments about this.--Peta 00:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Well-referenced and illustrated. We need more African topics featured. ergot 01:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I think I can support now, as many issues have been adressed, even if I'd prefer to see chopped from the lead the part regards the harvesting and handpicking, but it's not so important.--Aldux 16:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Well it is a great article. I'm happy to support, but I would have one request. Could the photograph be improved that is at the top right hand corner of the article. It is slightly out of focus, and there are blown highlights, also what is that bottle in the background. It really detracts from the otherwise great quality of the article. If possible, take another photograph, make sure the lighting is good, don't use a flash (if your camera has one), a clear neutral background (not black or too dark) — again, this is just picky stuff, feel free to disregard. - Francis Tyers · 09:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Okay so despite the intimidating size of the discussion it looks like there are twelve thirteen editors in support, and one person objecting who apparently hasn't taken a look at the article since the 22 of September. The other objection (the one responsible for most of the threaded discussions) has been withdrawn. — mark ✎ 06:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Support per above. —Khoikhoi 18:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)