Wikipedia:Peer review/Anaerobic digestion/archive1

Anaerobic digestion
I've listed this article for peer review because I have developed it over a number of months to good article status. I would like feedback on how it could be improved further and how muc distance it would require to reach featured article status. It has already been peer reviewed by participants in wikiproject environment.

Thanks,

Alex 09:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DTGardner 12:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
 * The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.[?]
 * There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Person, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
 * Per Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading  ==Magellan's journey== , use  ==Journey== .[?]
 * Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Summary style.[?]
 * As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

Article has been further reworked and copy edited following above suggestions--Alex 10:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Review by Jeff
There's some pretty good content here. The article needs work on its prose, though. The first order of business should probably be to flesh out the vague statements. This probably means doing a little research to find more facts to put in, for example: Here's an analogy to help clarify what I mean: This is just a sampling from the first few paragraphs. Try to identify places throughout the article which share these basic problems, do a little more research possibly, flesh out the prose so that each concept/statement puts the information into context and explains it without redundancy. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 19:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Anaerobic digestion has a long history dating back to the 10th Century BC." This is going to need some kind of explanation and context. (and a citation, too) Explain why something from the 10th century BC utilizes Anaerobic digestion, because it is not clear how. Plus, this is a necessary detail to flesh out the article.
 * Actioned, still trying to find original source and further background. This is widely cited but I am having trouble finding the original info.Alex 09:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Anaerobic digestion is considered to be a sustainable technology" Ok, but a much stronger sentence is "Anaerobic digestion is considered to be a sustainable technology because it ..." and then explain why in the sentence. Always start a paragraph with a strong decisive statement that puts the information out there. In fact, all sentences should do this. This engages the reader and makes prose flow better.
 * Tweaked as per above commentAlex 12:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "The first recorded use of biogas was for heating bath water in Assyria during the 10th century BC" again, we are going to need an explanation and citation here.
 * "In the 1930’s, people began to recognise anaerobic digestion as a science" A weak sentence, because we aren't told how/why people began to recognize it as a science. Telling how/why gives more information and makes the sentence more engaging.
 * Actioned rewording to make this paragraph flow betterAlex 12:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "A simplified overall chemical reaction of the process can be summarised as: C6H12O6 → 3CO2 + 3CH4" belongs in the body, not the lead.
 * Agreed and movedAlex 12:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "The four stages key of anaerobic digestion are hydrolysis, acidogenesis, acetogenesis and methanogenesis. " Instead of dumping the facts on us, you might go through each one. This makes the prose more engaging.
 * I have restructured this section and added some explanation of the bullet points. Hopefully this makes it more readable. Alex 13:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Research was done that led to the discovery of anaerobic bacteria" A weasel phrase, better to tell us what the research was.
 * I'm not so sure of the specific research. I will try and look into it Alex 13:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "A biogas plant is an anaerobic digestion system that is designed and operated specifically for the purpose of producing biogas." part of this is redundant, rewording the lead will help to make the prose flow more smoothly and eliminate redundancy.
 * Agreed there was repetition, it was a remnant of me merging this article with biogas powerplant. I have now added biogas plant as an alternative name for anaerobic digester in the lead in. This makes more sense Alex 13:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The main picture is way too big and it's not immediately obvious what the side of the digester is, because it just looks like a big wall. Try to reduce the size, and maybe find a more recognizable picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff Dahl (talk • contribs) 19:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actioned resize. Will look for/take a new picture when able toAlex 08:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "...a soil-improving material. " Better to tell us how it is a soil improving material, what nutrients are there that help plants grow.
 * "An apple is a thing you eat." weak
 * "An apple is a tasty fruit." stronger, because we eliminate the redundant word "thing". The sentence is shorter but actually has more information, because we imply that it is food, and we also describe its taste and the fact that it is a fruit.