User talk:Amancalada/sandbox

In the Anaerobic Digestion article, I will focus on the 'tasks awaiting attention' which include re-organizing the article to avoid repetition, fixing poor grammar, and rewriting and expanding the history section.

In addition to editing the article to ensure it matches the correct M.o.S., I'll use the below articles to write about when and where anaerobic digestion was first studied, how the technology and processes have changed, and the problems it was developed to fix.

Below are some resources that will help me with my changes:

Heukelekian, H. "Decomposition of Cellulose." Ind. Eng. Chem., 1927, 19 (8), pp 928–930. .

Buhr, H.O.; Andrews, J.F. "The thermophilic anaerobic digestion process." Pergamon Press 1977. Water Research, vol 11, pp 129-143. .

Scharer J.M., Moo-young M. (1979) Methane generation by anaerobic digestion of cellulose-containing wastes. In: Advances in Biochemical Engineering, Volume 11. Advances in Biochemical Engineering, vol 11. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. .

Stander, G.J. "Effluents from Fermentation Industries Part IV (1). A New Method for increasing and maintaining Efficiency in the Anaerobic Digestion of Fermentation Effluents." Public Health, 1950, vol 14, no 9, pp 263-273. .

Peer Review
I like that you enriched the history part of the article. Here are the suggestion I made and I hope it may help you: 1. I think you can edit the structure of the article and moved the history part to the first section. (Revised article section: History - Process - Feedstocks...) Apjil (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review 2
I also like that you chose to focus on the history section as it seemed to be lacking/absent from the original wiki. You seem to have been done a good job giving the background of the technology, but it lacks focus on the history of the policy surrounding it. If you can focus in on the policy portion, you'll add another level of depth.


 * also, are there any incentives that exist to promote biofuels in competition with electric vehicles?

The writing as a whole is encyclopedic and not opinionated. Good job! Mikep1991 (talk) 02:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)