Talk:Anaerobic digestion/GA1

GA Reassessment
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.''

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 05:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria
To uphold the quality of Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of February 28, 2010, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Lead: Previously, the technical expertise required to maintain anaerobic digesters coupled with high capital costs and low process efficiencies had limited the level of its industrial application as a waste treatment technology. - previously to what? This lacks context.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * There are a number of uncited statements, it is likely that the sources are there, but but for clarity inline cites need to be placed.
 * Twenty deadlinks were found and tagged using WP:CHECKLINKS
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * OK, on hold for seven days for the issues above to be addressed, major contributors and projects will be notified. Jezhotwells (talk) 06:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The coverage issues are large. See Anaerobic, a DAB page - whose description of "Anaerobic digestion" is not specifically an industrial application, although that's what Anaerobic digestion seems to focus on. IMO "Anaerobic digestion" is the wrong title and e.g. "Uses of anaerobic process in industry" would be more accurate, if unwieldy. The article's lack of "main" and/or "see" links highlights the lack of context - and to fix this, one would need to produce / improve a package of articles in which the top-level would be anaerobic chemistry and metabolism. Unfortunately I have a long "to do" list, so can't make large contributions - but if needed I can add hints on a package and what the coverage of the components might be. --Philcha (talk) 07:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Although some efforts to supply citations and repair dead links have been made, there are still a number of dead links and I concur with the comments by Philcha above.  Thus I am delisting this article from GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * OK, on hold for seven days for the issues above to be addressed, major contributors and projects will be notified. Jezhotwells (talk) 06:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The coverage issues are large. See Anaerobic, a DAB page - whose description of "Anaerobic digestion" is not specifically an industrial application, although that's what Anaerobic digestion seems to focus on. IMO "Anaerobic digestion" is the wrong title and e.g. "Uses of anaerobic process in industry" would be more accurate, if unwieldy. The article's lack of "main" and/or "see" links highlights the lack of context - and to fix this, one would need to produce / improve a package of articles in which the top-level would be anaerobic chemistry and metabolism. Unfortunately I have a long "to do" list, so can't make large contributions - but if needed I can add hints on a package and what the coverage of the components might be. --Philcha (talk) 07:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Although some efforts to supply citations and repair dead links have been made, there are still a number of dead links and I concur with the comments by Philcha above.  Thus I am delisting this article from GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Although some efforts to supply citations and repair dead links have been made, there are still a number of dead links and I concur with the comments by Philcha above.  Thus I am delisting this article from GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)