Talk:Coffee production

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2021 and 16 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pgeisen13.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Process summary

I don't have the energy to try right now, but it looks like it would be a good idea to have a short summary paragraph leading off the processing section to summarize the differences between different processing techniques. Pengortm (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

As a non technical coffee lover interested in the processing process, I would find that very useful. Looking forward to your energy levels rising - perhaps some strong coffee? Camerojo (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Coffee-reference as a citation

The use of the specific page https://www.coffeereview.com/coffee-reference/ is not an acceptable source for attribution, as the page is merely a collection of links to other pages. It lacks any content and it alone supports no facts. It is merely an aggregation of links to other pages.

Furthermore, the number of topics covered by the page are many and varied and therefore any citation pointing to this page is not helpful to readers searching for a deeper understanding of sourced material.

If you are responsible for citing "coffee-reference," please update the citations with a more accurate citation.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright: Can you please clarify? This seems like an industry trade journal. Some of that information through those links looks like general reference information which might be appropriate for Wikipedia. The information seems like it comes from the journal itself, so it is original content from that publication.

Is your objection that the link was to the landing page for all those subpages, rather than a citation to the specific relevant subpage? If so, that makes sense, people should link directly to the correct subpage.

What do you think of this source otherwise? Acceptable? Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, people should link directly to the correct subpage. The page at /coffee-reference/ is just an aggregation of links to other pages (often which are themselves links to other pages), like you said; landing pages, but with no content.

For example, if I write a coffee article about the story of Kaldi's goat and I reference only /coffee-reference/, that page has no mention of the word 'goat' at all. If an interested reader goes to /coffee-reference/, and then follows the /history/ link, they get closer to source material, but even that page is just an aggregation of links to other pages. It isn't until one has followed the links from Coffee-Reference → History → Goat Stories that they get to a page that contains citable, source material: https://www.coffeereview.com/coffee-reference/coffee-basics/coffee-history/goat-stories/.

I think CoffeeReview.com in general is fine as a source for wiki and it has been accepted in other articles.

Thanks for taking a look! Michael.C.Wright (talk) 23:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Honey dried

Halfway through the semi-wet processing section; the term "honey" appears.

This isn't explained anywhere and it's difficult to parse what in means in the context of coffee production. 185.127.157.154 (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)