Talk:Maraba coffee/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

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)

Is it "Maraba Coffee" or "Maraba coffee"?

The article is inconsistent on this point. Or is "Coffee" the brand name and "coffee" the generic? If so, it isn't quite clear in the text. Crystallina 00:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

That's always been my interpretation, with "Maraba coffee" read as "the coffee grown (in Maraba/by the Maraba-based cooperative)". "Café de Maraba" is the French name for the brand, so the proper noun seems to carry over to English. The two obvioiusly overlap in usage. Unfortunately, it appears that the primary author of this article, who could best explain, is off-wiki for the holidays and may not even be aware that its made it to the Main Page today. - BanyanTree 00:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think I did originally name the article Maraba Coffee because that's the translation of the French name of the brand, but actually Maraba coffee would probably be better as it's only the brand sold in Rwanda that is explicitly called "Maraba Coffee". I'll deal with this in a few weeks if no one else has first as I'm a bit pressed for time right now. Cheers — SteveRwanda 03:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll move this thing. As was the case with Kanab Ambersnail → Kanab ambersnail, this one needs to be moved due to incorrect capitalization. When I first saw this in the "Past Featured Articles" thingy, I thought that Maraba Coffee was a person. If there are no objections within one hour, I'm gonna move it. Floaterfluss ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright. It's done. No sulking, you had your chance. Floaterfluss ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Lock the article!!

hmm the history page is almost entirely vandalism and reverts. Could someone please lock the article to stop the vandalism? thanks... --F3rn4nd0 ^{BLA BLA BLA} 07:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

How did this become a FA?

The tone is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Exeunt 13:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• In addition, the names of the sellers of this Maraba coffee are far too prominent in the first paragraph. In fact, the initial version of the article describes Union Coffee Roasters as an "ethical" company and the external links section prominently links to the sites of businesses that sell the product. The article is compromised with commercial interest, lacks NPOV, and isn't well-written. Exeunt 13:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Got to agree this is the worst featured article i have ever seen The Uber Ninja 13:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, I just checked out older versions of the article. It was much better earlier. I think someone pulled a sneaky revert on us. I'm going to revert back to a much older version. Exeunt 13:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, those Maraba coffee sellers sure donated a lot to the Wikimedia Foundation eh? --Gunsfornuns 15:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a good article; I especially like how it's not too long. And come now -- do we have to wait for companies to go bankrupt before they can become a Featured Article? In other words -- would anyone object to Enron getting FA status? Mercantilism may have a checkered past -- especially over the last few decades -- but it's not like everything involving trade & money is inherently bad. Vranak

• My issue wasn't with the topic of the article, it was with the writing. When I first read the article, it was so poorly written I was shocked to see that it had been made featured article. After poking around the history page I discovered that someone had rewritten the whole thing into a big pile of crap. See for yourself here. Exeunt 20:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice. Vranak

As the primary author of this article I dispute that this is compromised by commercial interest. The article simply tells the story of the startup and running of this business, its key customers, investors etc. and is hence no different from any article about a business. Just because it's in a formerly wartorn African country and is sometimes used in the international press as a touchy feely feel-good story doesn't mean that it has no place on Wikipedia. Extensive discussions were held on the tone and writing during the FAC stage (at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Maraba_Coffee) and the majority consensus was (with one or two dissenters) that it was adequate as a business article.

I'm not sure which versions Exeunt is referring to as being a big pile of crap and which versions might be considered better, and don't have time to review it fully now... In any case the "ethical" thing was in a very early version of the article and was eliminated during peer review - you shouldn't shoot it down for that! Cheers — SteveRwanda 03:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The version of the article you intended is very good. My strong reaction was to this version, which was a huge departure from the article you had intended. I think this was a sneaky form of vandalism: reverting to a much older version of the article. Two first-time accounts reverted to the older version and mislabeled their edits as "rewriting." Exeunt 09:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Name of article

Brand names, in this case "Café de Maraba," are proper nouns; thus the English equivalent should be "Maraba Coffee" rather than "Maraba coffee." The former suggests a specific brand, whereas the latter simply means "coffee grown out of Maraba," and there may very well be more than one type of coffee grown in Maraba, if not in the future. So to avoid potential confusion, and as per English grammatical rules to which there are no exceptions, I will change the article's title to "Maraba Coffee." -- WGee 22:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)