Maraba Coffee

Wikipedia's featured article on Maraba Coffee does a wonderful job of sticking to the criteria set forth. The article follows the guidelines almost to a tee. It is a well written article; maybe not brilliant writing, but it is easy to read and it flows nicely through the table of contents. It is a comprehensive article. It has major facts listed about how the coffee is made and how its establishment came to be. The research that has been done is stable. Multiple links are available throughout the article to give more information, and to back up the writers facts. It is also a stable article. It doesn't have multiple edits, though its not exactly a subject that needs to be debated. It is merely an article informing of the making, distribution, and history of the type of coffee bean.

This article has a lead to which the reader can verify and understand what is to come in the article. It has appropriate structure, in that it flows through the history of the maraba coffee. It begins with the start of the company and ends with where they are at now. The article itself is the perfect example of what a featured Wikipedia article should be.

On another note, Marshall McLuhan's and Michelle Citron's biographies are less than acceptable of feature articles. They do not meet the criteria featured articles are held against and each have their own differences in which they do not fit.

While McLuhan's article is well written and very informative, it is written more like a book than an article. Instead of stating basic points and keeping to a narrow focus, it drones on, on the history of the man and every accomplishment he has made in his entire life. I think we could have done without the notes of his younger brother and the history of his family name, neither of which have any relevance later in the article. It is very comprehensive, and it flows naturally through McLuhan's life but again it is very long and drawn out. Most of the information presented is unnecessary for a wikipedia article. I think it should be more informative rather than a book length entry of the man.

Citron's article is narrow, concise, and to the point. It gives her background, her credentials, her filmography, and thats it. Its written less like a biography, and more like a brochure. Although I liked reading it, and it was easy to read and understand, it was missing any depth at all. There are no illustrations on the page. No pictures of her or her work. Even her list of filmography is incomplete. It is possible that the information was unavailable at the time the article was written, but it has very little information for anyone looking to do some research on Michelle Citron.

I think a happy medium would make the two articles more apt to become feature articles on Wikipedia. They both lack necessary ingredients needed to function in the criteria. Citron needs a little more. McLuahn needs a lot less.