User talk:Lkmjos/sandbox

Leif,

This sentence doesn't make much sense to me: Stormwater harvesting is practiced across the United States [missing something here ] in Texas and other States as a way to address rising [water? irrigation?] demands as populations rise. Internationally, Australia has been [is?] active in stormwater harvesting.

"Major concerns of new projects for stormwater harvesting include cost effectiveness as well as quality, quantity, and reliability of the reclamation, as well as existing water management infrastructure and soil characteristics. Some projects have estimated stormwater harvesting to be around twice as expensive when factoring operating cost per unit versus other potable water alternatives. However, other valuable benefits include reducing soil erosion and reducing demands on local aquifers, as well as reduction of pollution into local waterways. Ground catchment system [incomplete sentence, what about ground catchment systems?]"

The title of the section is concerns and it lists a bunch, then only talks about cost, then goes on to benefits. How does stormwater reclamation positively impact soil erosion if the water has already flowed across soil?

"For non-portable water purpose" should be non-potable water purposes (I think you could leave out "water" as it is redundant)

Maybe, "Lower quality water can be repurposed for non-potable use such as..." Potable uses such as...require higher quality input and significant treatment. or something like that?

One inconvenient part of the drainage system is to keep maintenance in case that conduits break and stormwater leaks away. Try, "a drawback of this storage system is the need for maintenance to ensure conduits do not break and leak stormwater. "

There are numerous gramatical errors and missing puncuation.

"Systems" seems like a misnomer, it only talks about one, Groundwater Catchment, which then should be the title of the section.

With respect to balance: Numerous issues and considerations are brought in at the top of the article and then never expounded on later, like soil erosion. The balance of the articles is about the steps of catchment, which is technical and detailed and skips over the general information which is what I would want in a wiki article.

The article seems neutral.

I think I can't see the references that you didn't put in, a sandbox issue? I expect that the technical information would be cited.

Howets (talk) 04:20, 31 October 2020 (UTC)