User:63.118.73.132/sandbox

Article Evaluation

I am evaluating the Wikipedia Anaerobic Digestion article.

In this article, many of the links to cited sources were not found were not working. Others linked to a website pages that did not support the information cited. Despite the citations, all content in the article was directly relevant to the topic and organized sensibly. In one section entitled "Configuration," it described the possible methods for digestion and options for technology. I believe the section could have had a more easily interpretable title- configuration sounds technical, but a title like "digester type" could be more informative. I have similar qualms with the section titles "complexity" and "residence times."

Most references with working links appeared to cite appropriate and reliable information, but require the user to have an account to the journal or website to see the entire reference. Many citations were to peer-reviewed journals and were likely neutral sources, and, similarly, the article seemed entirely neutral and non-biased.

While there don't appear to be missing sections, there could be a significant amount of information added to several sections. For instance, the history section is a small paragraph with a few sentences; there is surely more information that would be pertinent to the history of anaerobic digesters.

The talk page included comments about adding more information to the wiki page that would provide examples and more specific uses for digesters that did not appear to get added. Comments that had several responses were in reference to specific processes to determine if they were depicted as correctly as possible. The article appears to have been created in 2007, and the talk page showed a small number of comments and conversations over this 11 year time period. The article was formerly a Natural Sciences good article, but has since been delisted. Currently, the article is 'of interest' to four WikiProjects.

It seems there may be some content gaps in this article, particularly within the history section. There are methods of analysis to find content gaps, but I think a quick way to analyze whether one exists is to ask yourself the questions you'd want to seek out, and then determine if the answers are given.

Amancalada (talk) 02:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Amancalada