Good Idea !! But IMO, it fails something between the roasted beans and the cup of coffee... a pic of a coffee mill (or "grind" (?) coffee) would help to make a better (more complete) set !--Jebulon (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I focussed on the botany (therefore also the latin name as scope) and not on "how to make a cup of coffee" ;-). Then I would have chosen another kind of scope Llez (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The roasted beans where a good beginning for "how to make...", I'm frustrated ;). And the cup doesn't seem to be very very "focussed on the botany" =). At the end, I'm not so sure my question was so stupid...--Jebulon (talk) 00:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The cup of coffee should be removed from the botany set. And the image title "raw coffee" doesn't fit in the context. (BTW, "Amnerican coffee" is a unfortunate example of what can be made of coffee beans.) --Ikar.us (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC) And I Oppose, because this image is not only out-of-scope, but has itself a bad description. (It doen't explain which kind of coffee is in the cup, but talks about homeopathic use or raw beans.) --Ikar.us (talk) 11:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support That is excellent. Only the berries are not definitely the best in each subscope on Commons, and I think they'd be likely to win out. The idea and execution of this is top notch. Great work! Jebulon is right, though: If you can provide a ground beans, that would be good too. I'd skip the other stages of brewing, though: there's just too many ways to brew coffee (dozens of machines, french press, etc, etc) and too many types of grinders to keep this focused. Of course, images can be part of multiple featured sets. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to Support now. I'm not sure I was clear enough. I did'nt want to see a "machine", but maybe "powder" coffee (don't know the word, sorry ), and then, the cup. Because you cannot use directly roasted beans... --Jebulon (talk) 10:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
