Template:Did you know nominations/Coffee production in Democratic Republic of the Congo
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Montanabw(talk) 05:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Coffee production in Democratic Republic of the Congo[edit]
- ... that Coffea arabica accounts for one fifth of the total production of coffee in the Democratic Republic of the Congo?
Created by Rosiestep (talk), Nvvchar (talk), and Dr. Blofeld (talk). Nominated by Dr. Blofeld (talk) at 17:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC).
- Beginning review. Article is new enough and long enough. Did some light copyediting. Should it be "Coffee production in the Democratic Republic of the Congo"? I have changed all instances of tons to tonnes for consistency (I hope they are the same thing!). Philafrenzy (talk) 08:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- I will continue the review shortly. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Philafrenzy: a friendly FYI, tonne and ton are not the same thing. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, changed them back. Could you link them accordingly? Ref 5 indexmundi.com supports a tons figure but seems to be in kg? Philafrenzy (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- In Ref 5, the table gives figures in 60 kg bags and the quantity reported in bags has been converted into tons.--Nvvchar. 03:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- Please change it to Kg to match the source. Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 07:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Philafrenzy: Done, though I am not convinced as conversion to tons is valid.--Nvvchar. 17:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you (how could we be sure you did the conversion accurately?) I will finish the review shortly. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Weights and measures are a problem with this article. In the paragraph on production it says first that 119,320 tonnes were produced, then it fell to an unspecified amount before "increasing" to 40,000 tons in 2003. Can we link that instance to the relevant measure so that we know whether it was short tons or long tons? What amount did it fall to before recovering to 40,000 tons? There are four citation needed tags in the article that need attention. beenPhilafrenzy (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Philafrenzy: Thanks for the review. References have been fixed. Additional figures and wikilink to tons have been provided. Please see.--Nvvchar. 14:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Weights and measures are a problem with this article. In the paragraph on production it says first that 119,320 tonnes were produced, then it fell to an unspecified amount before "increasing" to 40,000 tons in 2003. Can we link that instance to the relevant measure so that we know whether it was short tons or long tons? What amount did it fall to before recovering to 40,000 tons? There are four citation needed tags in the article that need attention. beenPhilafrenzy (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I am ticking it but I have to admit I still find the section on production very confusing and of doubtful encyclopedic value, but I don't doubt its factual accuracy and that is enough for a tick. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)