- Comments by Ryan
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