Talk:Coffee/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Has dead external links from March 2010 and January 2010. Unsourced statements tagged from January 2010, August 2009, February 2010, December 2009 and potentially dated statement from 2006. Tagged as needing to be harmonized with the History of coffee article. Tom B (talk) 22:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can explain about the History of Coffee tag - we overhauled the history section but the tag was kept so that both would be aligned with each other really. I cannot remember whether the overhaul was complete now.

The main issue that needed tackling was the Processing section, which reads very differently to the Coffee processing - having read about the subject, the subarticle is much more in line with the sources and the section badly needs an overhaul to align with the subarticle. I had been meaning to do this but had lost interest in the past few months. Will see what I can do about that.

There are a number of other issues outlined on the talk page as well. I guess folks can list the most salient here WRT core comprehensiveness. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS - a bunch of uncited claims have been removed. Just keeping this here in case we later find we can validate some. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the two deadlinks, ref 8 would be good to update (it's 2005 figures anyway), and ref 40 is in the section in need of a complete overhaul. I will try to have a look at this soon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

righto, thankyou Tom B (talk) 10:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update - annoyingly I had to return the books on coffee that I borrowed ages ago to improve this article. It was only when doing it that I realised the Processing section, which reads very differently to the (more correct as I now realise) Coffee processing article. Unfortunately I don't have the books to do this bit justice (until I go borrow the books again). Hence I can't do much about that for one or two months. If it were me reviewing I'd be saying delist. If folks want to delist then I have no problem with that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's still problems in the article that have not been addressed, I am delisting it to a B-class. GamerPro64 (talk) 14:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I think that's fair. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]