Comments by Ryan[edit source]
1. What is the most important strength of this document? Detailed descriptions an strong table info.
2. What is the most important aspect to change? Document conflicts itself many times and uses some unhelpful slang.
3. How could the navigation of the document be improved? I am very impressed by your layout…no improvements needed in my opinion.
4. Do you have suggestions for improving the headings used in the document? Might use subheadings in the brewing section. Nice number of headings though, helps document flow.
5. Are there any topic sentences that should be improved? I think some of the one-liner sentences could be the topic sentences of the paragraphs which follow them.
6. Do all figures have captions, figure numbers and are they referred to in the text? Only figure 4 is mentioned in text. All tables are mentioned in text.
7. Is there at least one reference per author? Are the references cited properly and do they use the format described here? Looks like there are 3 sources for 2 people, so yes. The references look good. They are different, but it looks like that is because they are different types of sources.
8. Are tables included as text whenever possible? (Appropedia can search text in tables – so Lonny prefers tables to be text rather than images). Nice text-y tables. No improvement needed.
9. Should the document be shortened or lengthened? If so, what suggestions do you have. I think it is a good length. However, maybe some of the qualitative stuff like taste could be left out with no significant loss to the document.
10. Any other questions or comments for the authors?
Second sentence should start with “The…”
Third sentence should end in “…coffee, that produced through a drip filter”
At end of Background section, what type of inputs/outputs? What does “upstream” refer to?
When talking about bean sorting, “finds itself” sounds odd.
When talking about dark roasts, maybe mention that little, not none, of original flavors are tasted.
In the brewing section, maybe say hot water is used, or water near boiling, rather than boiling…that coffee would be very bitter. However, you should also not say that coffee is never boiled as that does unfortunately occur. One notable instance of coffee boiling is Turkish coffee, and yes it is bitter.
When you state that steeped coffee is a stronger cup, that seems misleading. It can be strongish, but wouldn’t boiled be much stronger. Also it would seem to be based on volume of grounds used.
Maybe source the drip coffee wide use/acceptance statement for US usage.
In coffee grounds section, the grounds being “shipped to some random dump.” seems like slang.
Treatment plant’s, not plants
You state that coffee breaks down fast in compost, but releases slow in soil…may want to elaborate and frame this idea better.
In the energy section, you might want to state that the bus analogy is in reference to kinetic energy.
Where is roasting in Table 1? Maybe brewing (it is large compared to processing)
In Table 2 it looks like it takes ~1960 mL of water in brewing to make only 100 mL of coffee.
The cultivation number seems low.
end[edit source]
Comments by Kevin[edit source]
1. The organization’s great. It’s an easy narrative to go from how a cup of coffee gets in my hand to what the implications of that luxury are.
2. It’s a great article: meaning, more is better. I’d love to keep reading.
3. It’s pretty navigable: all headers are linked in the TOC; references are linked to the References section. One suggestion: if possible, it’d be nice to link to the actual documents in the References section.
4. You might want to talk about washing, as it figures largely into the energy, water and emissions associated with each cup. Otherwise great.
5. No. The language is good; it reads for the lay, which is nice. Good job.
6. Figures 1-3 need references in the text. Otherwise, all OK.
7. There are apparently three authors, although one is anonymous. So, yes, there is at least on reference per author.
8. Tables are included as text.
9. See Question 4 above. Also, a discussion of shade-grown coffee might be of interest, in particular because of the fewer pesticides, herbicides, and other nasty stuff required by this alternative.
10. The speeding bus analogy doesn’t work. You’re relating energy to power… in order to do so, the reader needs to know for how long the buses are being driven at 50 mph. But the idea for the analogy is great, and I’d recommend a similar analogy for the carbon emissions section.
end[edit source]
Comments by Jaime Matteoli[edit source]
1. What is the most important strength of this document?
The background information on coffee's life-cycle is well covered.
2. What is the most important aspect to change?
The results could be better described and discussed.
3. How could the navigation of the document be improved?
The page is easy to navigate.
4. Do you have suggestions for improving the headings used in the document?
The heading Review of Resources used could be retitled: LCA Results.
5. Are there any topic sentences that should be improved?
The topic sentence for the Growing and Treatment section could better reflect the heading.
6. Do all figures have captions, figure numbers and are they referred to in the text?
The captions are descriptive. Figures 1, 2, and 3 are not referred to in text.
7. There is at least one reference per author. The references are cited properly and they use the format requested.
8. The tables are included as text.
9. Should the document be shortened or lengthened? If so, what suggestions do you have?
It is recommended that this document be lengthened by providing more discussion of the results
10. Any other questions or comments for the authors? The tables look very nice. The page seems well designed and well researched. Also, the tone and language is appropriate to appropedia. Did you learn anything about possible deforestation or land degradation resulting from coffee farming?