Wikipedia:Peer review/Recycling/archive2

Recycling


This peer review discussion has been closed. I've expanded this article significantly over the past couple of weeks, and now could really use some fresh perspective to see if it's going in the right direction and point out what more needs to be done. Thanks! --jwandersTalk 23:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Overall clear a lot of work has gone into this article and it is generally well referenced and written, with decent illustrations. Some specific comments follow: Good start and hope this helps, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 18:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Would the international symbol (Image:Recycle001.svg) be a better opening image?
 * Second paragraph of the lede is confusing and has a spelling error: Though analogus [sic], the composting of biodegradable waste—such as food or garden waste—is not typically considered recycling.[2] These materials are either brought to a collection centre or picked-up from the curbside, sorted[ extra space], cleaned and reprocessed into new products bound for manufacturing. This makes it sound as if food and garden-waste are "cleaned and reprocessed into new products". Watch for spelling errors and typos.
 * Per the WP:MOS, section headers should not repeat the title generally (History subsections, possibly also Import and export of recyclates section)
 * History section reference to Plato needs a citation - all attributions do.
 * History section has large gaps and is a bit US-centered - did people in Belgium (for example) really get "recycling hysteria" (very POV by the way) from the US Mobro 4000 barge incident?
 * Economics section - it is almost always better to cite specific people when presenting viewpoints, so Advocates of recycling argue that ... which is refrenced to the League of Women Voters would perhaps be better as something like Advocates of recycling, such as the League of Women Voters, argue that...
 * It would be helpful to give dates for specific articles cited (Tierney, etc.)
 * Common recylcables section is good but has too many photos - too much whitespace as a result.
 * There seems to be a large number of See also links - I did not check but these are not usually also linked in the article itself.
 * References are a mess - missing title for a book (ref 3), internet refs are lacking publisher and/or date accessed.