User talk:KristinaRan/sandbox

Peer Review
Effectively communicated the expectations on what is to be edited in the article. The material in the draft is neutral, relevant, and backed up with appropriate sources. You could provide a bit more specific details, for example, which other countries you are going to elaborate on. Continue editing your draft for an improvement in the Biosolids article, and I'm sure your addition to the article will be great. Nataliezahrebelny (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Response - I will look into the countries that will be elaborated on to make it more specific

Peer Review
Great job so far! I would like to make a few comments regarding what you've currently covered as well as some recommendations on what else could be added to the article.


 * 1) I noticed there were some references used in the article that were from company websites (for example, references #20 and #22 link to manufacturing websites). I would suggest going over the cited paragraphs/sentences in which these references are used and add proper, peer-reviewed references.
 * 2) I agree with your suggestion on adding citations to the paragraph beneath the "Quantities" heading. There is quite a bit of information here that needs proof.
 * 3) In response to your suggestion for changing up the wording of the paragraph beneath the "History" heading, I disagree. I feel that because it is discussing the historical aspects of biosolids, it is simply recounting past events rather than describing them from a biased point of view.
 * 4) You mentioned the possibility of discussing how "biosolids have a beneficial effect on the chemical composition and physicality of soil, as well as crop yields". This is great information, however, maybe you could elaborate on how biosolids have a beneficial effect?

Overall, I think your content is good and your sources are reputable. I look forward to seeing your final product! --Kyliebennett (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Response - I will look into the references 20 and 22 and try and find peer-reviewed articles to back up the information using these sources and elaborate on how biosolids can be beneficial to try and make the article more neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KristinaRan (talk • contribs) 16:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review
The article does focus on the correct topic and has points that should be added to improve upon the article, but I think there are some things missed or could be reworded.

When you are talking about biosolids and there applications as a fertilizer the wording could be interpreted as not neutral due to the wording making you seem to push the use of the product. I think your suggestion with additions to the characteristics and quantities section is very much needed, but also try and find information from other countries and there uses so that it isn't just focused on the united states. More research should be followed to get a more in depth look into viewpoints of biosolids from a variety of different organizations and countries applications based on your citations.

Overall, I think the improvements that you have stated should be done are on the right track, but requires further sources and perspectives. If that is done I think you can improve this article.

Response - I agree with the wording making the article seem bias and that it focuses too much on the united states, I will be taking this into consideration when forming my final product and looking more in depth to different views on biosolids. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KristinaRan (talk • contribs) 16:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)