|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This page was nominated for deletion on 21 February 2012. The result of the discussion was keep.|
|Start a new discussion thread|
Here are a few comments from edit logs:
- Copyediting won't help this article; this needs a complete rewrite to make this unencyclopedic; an expert would be useful BuddingJournalist (talk · contribs)
- this is a scientific salad :) Lots of good info, totally unstructured, I have to look into further work on the subject before I can do better editing Walter Hartmann (talk · contribs)
Personally, I'd say the first priority is to improve the article's links (both incoming and outgoing, but especially incoming), so we can attract editors who may have some knowledge/interest. Secondly, I'd fix some of the more obvious organizational problems. You can't stop people from copy-editing; that's just the nature of wikipedia (and a lot of other places too). Kingdon 19:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
The article struck me as an advertisement at first. Repetitive use of a company name and a specific technology would more appropriately be found after a general explanation of processing methods and the contents and quantities of wastewater produced, in a section devoted to remediation and reduction efforts. After having demonstrated that certain processes generate certain amounts of waste with particular contents, it would then be appropriate to highlight the performance of a particular approach (as far as drawn conclusions are acceptable here anyway considering nPOV) Freshgroundcoffee (talk) 03:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Difference in coffee quality from washed and semi-washed processing
The claim in the semi-washed section "the quality of the end product is regarded as inferior" was unsourced since January 2007.
Joseph Karanja Mburu's Ph.D. thesis titled "Comparative use of lime and moringa oleifera in removal of suspended solids from coffee processing effluent" includes:
- In Kenya, the coffee cherry is preferably wet processed because it reportedly produces superior quality coffee compared to the dry and semi washed coffee processing methods (Shanmukhappa et. al., 1998 and Gonzalez-Rios et al., 2006).
.. which citations are:
- Shanmukhappa, D.R.; Alwar, R. P. A.; Srinivasan, C.S. (1998). "Water pollution by coffee processing units and its abatement". Indian Coffee: 3–9.
- Gonzalez-Rios, O.; Suarez-Quiroz, N. L.; Barel, M.; Bernard, G.; Renaud, B.; Guiraud, J. P.; Sabine, S. G. "Importance of water in the wet post-harvest process on the quality of Mexican coffee". 21st International Conference on Coffee Science, Montpellier, France, 11-15 September, 2006. pp. 450–460. ISBN 2-900212-20-0.
(I do not have access to these.)
The English abstract of a different paper claims:
- For the analyzed samples, the results showed that the wet via processing, with or without removal of mucilage, do not differ as to the overall quality of the drink.
Sérgio Henriques Saraiva; Lilian Bozzi Zeferino; Suzana Maria Della Lucia; Luciano José Quintão Teixeira; Mateus da Silva Junqueira. "Efeito do processamento pós-colheita sobre a qualidade do café conillon" [Effect of post-harvest processing on the conillon coffe quality].
Due to this conflict, I am removing the unsourced claim.