Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Coffee/archive1

Coffee

This article was nominated previously, but I think that the reasons why it has been rejected have been resolved. This is a Good Article which has great pictures, well balanced sections, detailed, and acurate discriptions. I think it covers everything on the topic. Tobyk777 02:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose for a start - such a huge article the lead should be longer to summarise the content of the article. I think to reduce the huge size of the page the section of coffee drinks should be moved to a list of coffee drinks or something similar and a paragraph or two written in summary of the content. History seems under developed There is no consistent reference system, the aricle is a bit thin on sources. There are seveal short sections that are poorly developed like Coffee substitutes and Coffee as an artistic medium or not especially relevant sections like Coffee as a fertilizer - any organic matter can be used as fertilizer. I would suggest sending this article back to peer review.--nixie 04:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment As far as sources go, the reason people often don't include them is becuase they didn't use them. Most of the time on wikipedia, people write from their personal knowlage. They can't site their brain as a source. I just knew the info I added to this article. I didn't get it from a soruce. By saying that anything which doesn't site sources for the whole thing is invalid to become an FA means that anything which people wrote from their own knowlage is invalid, which is dumb. Tobyk777 05:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • No, actually, it isn't dumb at all. Read these: Wikipedia:No Original Research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. These two core policies should guide all our work, and most certainly Featured Articles. Research, not setting down what's in your brain, is what Wikipedia is all about. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Even if you write from the top of your head, you need to cite sources to prove what you think you remember is actually correct and supported by reliable sources. More common stuff like the color of coffee beans doesn't need any special sourcing, but as soon as you get into biological and historical facts, you can't go without. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object, same as before:
  1. The image Image:Frappe.jpg has no source or copyright information.
  2. The image Image:Coffee cup.JPG has no source information, and no, "from Spanish Wikipedia" doesn't cut it -- the image was deleted from there due to questionable license information [1]

  --Carnildo 08:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. See above. --- Basileus Basileon Basileuon Basileuoton 03:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Fix the captions to include periods ("."), be more informative, and be complete sentances. I just skimmed the article, and if the captions are bad and other users object I think this needs work. Officialy, however, I'll leave this as a neutral comment. --HereToHelp (talk) 14:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • WP:STYLE#Captions instructs "If the caption is a single sentence or a sentence fragment, it does not get a period at the end." There are currently 3 images: one is a fragment with no period, one is a genus/species label with no period, one is a sentence and a half with a period. DMacks 20:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Article is dominated by lists which need rewriting into detailed prose, there is a lack of citations and references and the lead is very short considering the length of the article. There are also lots of short sections and there are image source/copyright problems mentioned by Carnildo above. — Wackymacs 20:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think this article is too lengthy, and has too many external links. For example, why is http://www.coffeeblogging.com/ listed? The site isn't notable at all, and not that informative to merit inclusion in the external links. ---Aude 23:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Heavens no, the issues haven't been resolved! Nearly all of them still apply. It's nowhere near ready for consideration. Really, you should at least raise the issue on the talk page before nominating it to get a sense of what the contributors think about it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. (regarding others' objections). The lists have been removed. All images are now CreativeCommons or GNU-FDL. External links have (I think) been pared of non-"useful reference" sites. (what's the protocol here...do I place notes next to each Object above? DMacks 20:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The nomination's old enough that you should start fresh with a new nomination. --Carnildo 22:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)