User:StolteKate/Bioremediation/Yanakigel1 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

StolteKate


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:StolteKate/Bioremediation


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Bioremediation

Evaluate the drafted changes
All the references seem reliable and up to date. Your text has titles and it well organized. It doesn't look like you have any issues with neutrality, or personal intake, it seems like you mostly describe the procedures.

The first paragraph seems a bit similar to the existing lead paragraph, are you planning or replacing it or expanding on it? Similar goes to "Limitations of bioremediation" and "Heavy metals" topics.

Introduction paragraph mentions "...more sustainable than other remediation alternatives". You could add examples of the "alternatives", even if just links to other Wikipedia pages. I don't know much on the topic so it would be nice to expand that part. I like that you added the later on "bioremediation related technologies" to the paragraph but I wonder why the list is different from the original articles list of examples.

In-situ and Ex- situ could be shortly defined, I had to look it up. Maybe link to something like In situ Wikipedia page if you want to avoid adding a definition.

Bioventing (formally Aerobic) topic seems a bit confusing to me, especially the last two lines. Perhaps it could be rewritten more clearly, or with more examples. It could be just me though so you could add it to the talk page perhaps to see if others might have opinions.

Biosparging and Bioventing (formally Aerobic) both talk about air/oxygen being introduced. Maybe the Biosparging section could mention what is the main difference from the earlier topic (similarly how you added the "however..." in Biopiles). It would also help you expand further on the paragraph since currently it feels unbalances to the longer topics before it.

Heavy metals could include "main article: Heavy metals" underneath. It is very clear otherwise and for a person that does not understand, it is easy to read. I wonder if you could expand on it, it seems interesting. You could add some more links to your words that go to other Wikipedia pages, maybe the metal names for example.

The later paragraphs of your draft seem much easier to read. Maybe you could reapply some of the ways you written them to the first few paragraphs.

Some topics could be more explained and covered. For example "...can take a few years to decontaminate a site" under the "Limitations of bioremediation" topic might talk about the reasons of why it might take so long.

You have an impressive list of references. You currently have 26 references, I think you might be able to add more to your article from the links you already found. For example https://rabm.scholasticahq.com/article/10941-advantages-and-limitations-of-in-situ-methods-of-bioremediation has a lot more you could squeeze out of it.

I went to the talk page to look if there could be more topics to discuss and saw this comment from .Jytdog :

"Also please use more recent refs (last five years or so - going further back than that is generally problematic), and please avoid primary sources (a paper in the scientific literature in which people do experiments and describe them and the results, is a primary source in Wikipedia)."

Make sure to check if the older references you used are still relevant today, or had recent changes.