User talk:DieDemokratieimmer/sandbox

Peer Review by Laura Sierra
I'm quite impressed with the reference list your article has and the legal framework section is a great topic to incorporate. Because this article is specifically about waste management in Turkey, would it be possible to hyperlink the heading under the see also Wikipedia page you mentioned at the bottom, or anything related to Turkey and its waste management? And creating a simpler title for your article so its not as wordy would be a good idea for people to easily look up your article's title. For the sections that require further information, try doing this asap so that we can let you know where to improve on the following sections. There are some additional terms that you should hyperlink to other wikipedia pages in your opening section, such as 'sterilization' and 'landfilling' (maybe try using landfill instead of landfilling by rephrasing the sentence?). Also don't forget to hyperlink the country of Turkey in your opening paragraph. Overall, this makes for a very interesting stand alone wiki page!

Laurasweil (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Laura
 * Comments from Rosie: Rosieredfield (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)



Looks good
Peer Review by Peter Lambert

Overview:

-looks well formatted, concise and interesting (the pictures help)

-Is this going to stand alone in Wikipedia, or can it be part of a project on Turkey or on Waste Management or on Environmental Issues in Turkey of Civic Programs in Turkey or whatever. Also isn’t waste management different from city to city?

Introduction:

- Turkey's waste management system is not a priority policy area. doesn’t seem like the fairest or most effective introduction. It’s a great phrase, but we’ve got to start with something that is just descriptive, not based on opinion.

-Rest of this section is great. Looking forward to a link to gasification and plasma so I can find out what they are.

-Great pictures

-Which bodies specifically manage the waste in different places?

Legal Framework:

-I like this section… I think its cool, and rare to have a legal background on municipal practice.

Further information here:

-more to come I see!

-I’d like to know about location of landfills, which companies/state corporations are paid to pick up the trash, how much garbage workers make, a stronger environmental analysis of their process – what works and what critques are there, how people in Turkey feel about their system etc. etc. etc.

Final/General thoughts:

-Good work! Its going to be lovely

--PeteLambert (talk) 19:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Peter,

Thanks for your feedback. Actually, yes, it is going to be a stand-alone article stacked under "Waste management by country" directory, where they list waste management practices from different countries. I'm actually referencing "Environmental issues in Turkey" under "Also see" section because the information in that page seemed a bit too general. You actually gave me some great ideas to expand on, so thank you again. Cheers.

DieDemokratieimmer (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments from Rosie: Rosieredfield (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I like your questions about additional information to provide. (Even though Batu already has plenty.)

Peer Review by Eva Regehr

I am wondering- because the title of the page is so specific will it be hard for people to come across? Maybe the title should be more concise, like: "Turkey Waste Management". I think this sentence "The country regardless employs several waste management practices including sanitary landfills, incineration (only for hazardous waste), sterilization, composting, and other advanced disposal methods such as pyrolysis, gasiﬁcation as well as plasma." needs to be restructured, your use of the word "regardless" doesn't seem necessary. Also the methods you describe are hard to follow- what is "plasma"? I think you should link these words to other wikipedia pages so that people can look into the definitions if necessary (I personally would find this very helpful otherwise its a bit confusing). The overall organization of the page needs some work. I think you need a "Background" section to introduce your page, this would make it more reader friendly. I think there is a lot of content missing which made it a bit difficult to review. The "Statistics" section I am unable to review as there is nothing there but do you really need a statistics section? I think having a section on the different types of waste disposal e.g. organics, cardboard, garbage, recycled plastics etc. would be helpful as well. Also, a section on "management" would be good.You could also provide some information on the landfills that they use and where they are located. Maybe give some information on the amount of waste that is produced annually. I think in this day and age people want to know about the cities "green policies" if you will- does Turkey have any goals for their waste management (reducing organic waste in landfills or better recycling etc.) I am not sure if I see the value in having a section on "waste mismanagement" maybe you could turn this into "issues" or something like that. Overall I like that it will be its own stand a lone article it is very practical information. Good luck! Evaregehr (talk) 05:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Evaregehr
 * Comments from Rosie: Rosieredfield (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Good advice about linking the methods to specific WIkipedia pages.

'''

PEER REVIEW BY KIMIA
I think you have good content, I am just not that impressed by the way it is arranged. I think you should add more headers and divide your content on that, such as an introduction. I thought all the info was mixed up too much together. Also, certain words you chose are a bit vague. And I am referring to the ones you did not hyperlink. I didnt know what plasma is but you hyperlinked it so thats good!:) however, other stuff such as "law on environments" maybe you can hyperlink those too so it can make your topic come together in a more orderly fashioned. I thought you had a good list of references though. It is evident that you still have a lot of work to do since you mentioned "further info here" in the majority of your headings, but i thought the headings of these were good. Overall, more contents needs to be added and i suggest you divide the legal frameworks in subheadings so it can be more clear and organized. Best of luck! :) Kpars100100 (talk) 02:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments from Rosie: Rosieredfield (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that subdividing the material with subheadings would make it more focused and readable.

Peer Review by Jacob Bosancich
This looks like it will be a very interesting page. I have never thought of how other countries deal with waste so this is something novel to me and I would like to know more. As far as I can tell, the page in not yet completed. This can be a good thing as these comments could help form the page. The general layout of your presentation is good. It is clear an I like the subheadings. The pictures are a nice touch and they are helpful in conveying the general idea of the page. The formatting on the "Laws" section could be changed a little bit. Bring everything left and indent a little bit if needed but indenting differently makes it look a bit disorganized on wikipedia page. Although, I know it is probably suppose to be formatted like that in law.I would really like more information on "the impact of poor waste management" but I feel like the title isn't objective enough. Maybe just "impact of waste management". The original title of the section makes it sound like your trying to prove that it is poor. Statistics will also be great to see but maybe that can be grouped in with the respective categories. I feel like the general reader doesn't want to gain a bunch of statistics all at once and might result in confusion. Elaborating on which methods are used, externally linking that, addressing any problems with those, mentioning financial costs, economic costs, heath and safety costs could all be good things to add in the paper as you are working on it. Goodluck! Bosancich123 (talk) 05:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Feedback from Rosie and Ruth
From Rosie: Some reorganization of statements is needed. For example, some of the statements under '..practices..' really belong in the 'Impact...' section. From Ruth:
 * Lots of improvements since March 10.
 * See if you can get a native-English-speaker friend to read it over for you, to catch the minor usage errors.
 * ‘Turkey's waste management system is not a priority policy area’ vague statement. What does this actually mean?
 * Need more hyperlinks to other Wikipedia page (fixed now).
 * Too short in March 10th version, much better now. The details have been filled in!
 * Your language could be made a bit simpler and clearer in parts as your language is a bit complex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosieredfield (talk • contribs) 21:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)