Jump to content

Talk:Maraba coffee

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleMaraba 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. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 31, 2006.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 2, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
October 6, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 11, 2006.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that Maraba Coffee, the first Rwandan coffee to gain Fairtrade status, is used to make the only coffee beer sold in the British Isles?
Current status: Featured article
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Maraba coffee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maraba coffee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FAR needed

[edit]

This FA was promoted in 2006, and uses a blog source (coffeemachinereviewer.com). It is also not in compliance with WP:NOTPRICE. Unless someone is able to bring this old FA up to standard, it should be submitted to Featured article review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: the facts now cited to that blog source were at the time of featuring hosted at http://www.marabacoffee.org/MarabaFacts.html, which at the time was the official website of the coffee itself, so although a WP:PRIMARY source, it was used for facts and figures rather than opinions so presumably acceptable. Unfortunately the internet archive has no snapshots of that page, and I'm not sure any exist (although I did save one locally to my archives at the time). The blog source does give the exact same data as the original page though. Not sure what to do about that. On the other issue you mention, I recall that you had quite a few objections at the time of the FAC but eventually struck your oppose, even though you did not support. I think the article does need some more prose to bring it up to date, with history beyond 2006, but beyond that I'm not sure very much has changed in the tone and structure since the FAC. Did you have any specific objections? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: my apologies for my delayed response; I was traveling all last week and barely keeping up.
First, to separately address the blog source. I am not sure it was necessary to replace the original source with a non-reliable source just because we don't have an archived version of the original source. I added back the now-dead, albeit reliable source, with an indication that the same info can be found at the blog source, so that I could at least untag the old info as non-reliable.[1]
That was somewhat of an exercise in futility, though, because everything cited to that source is in bad need of updating, meaning a new source should probably be found anyway. I tagged only the bottom as needing an update, but it is easy to see that the entire article needs to be updated, and also needs a MOS and prose review. One also easily notices things like "classed below Grade C" where we never tell the reader what that means. Are you hoping or planning or able to work on an update here? If so, I will go through after and do the MOS stuff and indicate any copyedit needs. But unless we have someone willing to update the article, the MOS and copyedit won't help save the bronze star. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: yes, I can certainly come back to this and work on it in the next few months to fix any issues that are identified and find the sources to bring it up to date for 2020. To be honest it's been on my to-do list for a few years now, I've been aware that it's kind of stuck in a 2006 time-warp, but it's never been the most pressing thing on my list of projects! I didn't think there were any prose or content issues, as the content has remained largely unchanged since the FAC, but it would be great if you could work any magic on it and advise me if there's things I need to do in that regard. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the outdated stuff, it's really not in bad shape. (It only came to my attention as other editors were singling it out as an example of an FA that breached WP:NOTPRICE … but it strikes me that the use of pricing information conforms with NOT.) I'll unwatch for now, but ping me when you're done updating, and I'll have a look. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru you there?  :). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: apologies, this hasn't slipped my mind. I'm just trying to dig out good sources for this one - there don't seem to be a huge number covering the last 10 years other than primary sites such as the resellers. I'll be a bit busy IRL for the next month but will definitely circle back to this with the update as and when I have the time. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru:, I'm itching to get this off of Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: I think I'll probably have to give up on it to be honest... I have tried to find updated information on the topics currently in the article (products and customers, and recent history) but they just aren't really available through online sources. Probably if I were on the ground in Rwanda I would be able to dig out reports and data from public records or archives, but I'm limited really to what's in the newspapers, which isn't much. So I guess just move on to whatever the next stage is... If there are specific things that come up in FAR that I could plausibly fix then I will do so, but otherwise I'll just have to sadly say goodbye to my first FA and try to just promote some others instead! Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 07:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, this article has improved enough that we should be able to avoid FAR ... here are some things that might Lead to useful updates:
There are enough leads in these that can be turned into useful updates. You don’t have to update exactly the specific data in the article ... just show that the article is not outdated and has incorporated new info. Not gonna give up on this success story ;). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SandyGeorgia: (sorry for late reply): great, that's nice to hear! I assumed you were saying we'd have to go for an FA removal unless I did serious reworking across the article. I'll revive my efforts to do some updates then, in the next few weeks and thanks for the links. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maraba_coffee&oldid=1195367277"