Wikipedia:Peer review/Recycling/archive1

Recycling
Following a concerted effort to make this a featured article, the drive slowed and refined editing has become stagnant. The authors come from mainly technical backgrounds and would appreciate feedback on improving it. To compliment the waste management section and ongoing recent peer review of incineration a peer review of this article would be welcome. Thank you for your help in advance --Alex 11:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment A decent article; could be made a bit better, and make sure it represents a worldwide view. Has potential for expansion, but no need for massive re-write. --SunStar Net 12:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Could be a lot longer: how do countries put recycling into action? Wiki-newbie 18:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment It does need cleaning up. There are incomplete sentences (see the criticism section), and I just moved two recycling techniques under the proper heading, out from under "drawbacks". The article may be stagnant, but it's not yet finished. -Amatulic 21:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 22:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hope some of this helps. Seegoon 21:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A couple of things:
 * 1) Is it necessary to make clear the difference from "reuse" in the second sentence? The lead should probably be more concentrated on the subject matter, and less on semantics. For more, see WP:LEAD.
 * 2) I don't see a table of recycling rates around the world, showing the highest rates to the lowest. If properly cited, that would make fascinating reading. That said - it would be impossible to list the rates of all countries in the world, as such a massive table would be oppressive to the article. If you could compile one, or one as full as possible, and paraphrase it in this main article, that would be ideal.
 * 3) References need to be cleaned up to Wikipedia's citation style. See here, especially "cite web". Likewise, 13 separate citations is probably insufficient for an article of this size.
 * 4) The "Criticism" section could be expanded.