Talk:Maraba coffee

FAR needed

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)

@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)

@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 I am not sure it was necessary to replace the original source with a non-reliable source just because we don't have an archived version of the original source.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.

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)

@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)

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)

Amakuru you there?  :). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@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)

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

@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)

Nah, this article has improved enough that we should be able to avoid FAR ... here are some things that might Lead to useful updates:

• https://www.newtimes.co.rw/section/read/185349
• https://www.newtimes.co.rw/section/read/61389
• https://books.google.com/books?id=-b7HCltktqgC&pg=PA272&lpg=PA272&dq=maraba+coffee+production&source=bl&ots=Y1rONj18zp&sig=ACfU3U0g0eUtv1l-bKRY7k6EmfpxTwjl5Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjUrpiVp73qAhUDOs0KHb3ZB204ChDoATAHegQICRAB#v=onepage&q=maraba%20coffee%20production&f=false
• https://rootcapital.org/meet-our-clients/stories/maraba-rebuilding-lives-and-livelihoods-after-genocide-in-rwanda/ 40% women
• https://sublimemagazine.com/women-in-the-lead 30% women
• https://gorillaspirits.co.uk/maraba-coffee-liqueur/ a liquer!
• https://openjicareport.jica.go.jp/pdf/1000016725.pdf
• https://agri-logic.nl/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/CBI_VCA-Rwanda_Final.pdf
• http://globalknowledgeinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/GKI-LINK-Context-Analysis-RWANDA-1.pdf
• http://ccsi.columbia.edu/files/2018/04/Ensuring-Economic-Viability-and-Sustainability-of-Coffee-Production-CCSI-2019.pdf
• https://books.google.com/books?id=KEeHDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA325&lpg=PA325&dq=maraba+coffee+exports&source=bl&ots=CEsvpmyvB6&sig=ACfU3U2Uv0DZba2GwTmVSkoTzXthfrihyA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjzwpCYrr3qAhWFUs0KHfZNAwkQ6AEwBHoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=maraba%20coffee%20exports&f=false
• https://blueandgreentomorrow.com/environment/rwandan-maraba-coffee-co-operative-celebrates-15-year-partnership/

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)

• @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)

Article issues: ones perhaps still remaining and newer ones

This article was marked as "satisfactory" once six years ago at WP:URFA/2020A. Doubtful that two more "Satisfactory" marks will arrive soon. Besides reliability of sources and potential outdatedness, I'm also concerned about the article's noncompliance with WP:FACR#2c. Indeed, I see different citation styles used all over the place. George Ho (talk) 21:17, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Plausible data?

Hej, just wondering about the ratio. The article mentions 500k farmers and some 150t coffee. That is on average less than 1kg of coffee per farmer. I am no expert but it strikes me as remarkably low. Is this really true? An average coffee plant produces typically more than 0.5kg/a roasted beans so this would imply that on average one person owns just one plant. ~2026-39803-73 (talk) 06:59, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

JMBryant (talk) 07:15, 14 July 2026 (UTC)I worried about the same thing - I do not have time for any more research but Google AI says "The Maraba sector makes up approximately 0.2% of Rwanda’s total geographic area and accounts for roughly 0.3% to 0.4% of its coffee growers.While it represents a tiny fraction of the country, its economic and cultural footprint in the specialty coffee industry is massive. The breakdown of Maraba's size relative to Rwanda as a whole includes:Geographic Footprint: Maraba covers an area of roughly 52 square kilometres. Compared to Rwanda’s total landmass of 26,338 square kilometres, it constitutes just 0.2% of the nation.Grower Population: Maraba's 1,400 to 1,600 coffee growers represent roughly 0.35% of Rwanda's estimated 350,000 to 500,000 total farmers.General Population: According to census records held by the National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda, Maraba is home to roughly 26,800 residents. Out of Rwanda's broader population of over 14 million, this equates to roughly 0.19% of the total population." Can somebody check this please? I apologise for not trying to help, but have a VERY full week.

Per WP:RSAI, whatever Google Gemini generates is unreliable and cannot be used. Have you checked out yet whatever sources it has cited for such info? As you said, you've not had enough time to research. Most likely, you've not yet looked up the sources that Google Gemini was citing, have you? (BTW, I'm thinking about moving your sig to the end of your comment, but...) George Ho (talk) 07:25, 14 July 2026 (UTC)