Nathan Sanger's Comments[edit source]
Below is a list of comments from a fellow peer enrolled in the Environmental Impact Assessment Course at Cal Poly Humboldt.
What is the most important strength of this document?[edit source]
I love the brutal honesty of the page, you show how hard it can be to do a real cradle to grave assessment. I also think the figures for both the disposable and the cloth diaper life cycles are good visual aids to assist the reader. The navigation of the document is also very strong.
What is the most important aspect to change?[edit source]
Perhaps remove or expand the air emissions section for both diaper types since it wasn't really addressed.
[edit source]
Add a lifecylce overview header to the throw away diaper section.
Do you have suggestions for improving the headings used in the document?[edit source]
See the navigation comment above.
Are there any topic sentences that should be improved?[edit source]
Raw material consumption section for disposable diapers needs a topic sentence.
Do all figures have captions, figure numbers and are they referred to in the text?[edit source]
You labeled the Reusable Diapers as Figure 2 and Figure 3, it should be Figure 4. This figure is not referenced in the text.
Is there at least one reference per author? Are the references cited properly and do they use the format described here? https://www.appropedia.org/Help:Footnotes[edit source]
Yes, fine job friends!!!
Are tables included as text whenever possible? (Appropedia can search text in tables – so Lonny prefers tables to be text rather than images). This page contains information on how to make tables https://www.appropedia.org/Help:Table_examples[edit source]
Yes again!
Should the document be shortened or lengthened? If so, what suggestions do you have?[edit source]
Slightly lengthened. Given the time constraint of this project I think it is great; if one had more time I would expand the raw materials sections (especially for the cloth diapers), the air emissions sections, and expand further on the conclusion. I also feel like composting diapers showed some real potential from the little they were referenced which could warrant further review.
Any other questions or comments for the authors?[edit source]
As a potential parent someday I think this is page a good start toward making a more informed decision when having to go through these poopy choices of cloth vs disposable diapers. I especially loved the section where yall said "Not only is the diaper product being thrown away, but untreated feces and urine as well (and whatever else leaves a baby's anus and urethra--toy cars, pacifiers, missing socks...)." That telling it like it is, and it has A Yearberry written all over it!
Adam Howell's Comments[edit source]
1) What is the most important strength of this document?[edit source]
I think the page does a great job of conveying the complexity of the topic. Diapers are a relatively simple product, yet so much goes into their manufacture, use and disposal. There really is not one clear answer, and this is the way of the world.
2) What is the most important aspect to change?[edit source]
Quantify the air emissions if possible. Focus on improving your topic sentences and overall paragraph flow.
[edit source]
I was able to navigate through the document easily in a logical fashion. No work on organization is needed. Centering your tables would balance the page better visually. Also, a few photographs would be nice.
4) Do you have suggestions for improving the headings used in the document?[edit source]
The headings were descriptive and clear.
5) Are there any topic sentences that should be improved?[edit source]
The topic sentences are mostly ok. The one on solid waste is especially good because it not only introduces the paragraph, it also grabs the reader's attention. The following is more of a list than a topic sentence. "The composition of a disposable diaper can be approximated as 43% wood pulp (Fluff pulp), 27% super absorbent polymer (SAP), 10% polypropylene (PP), 13% polyethylene (PE), and 7% tapes, elastics and adhesives (Figure 2; [3])" These wiki pages are tricky because they are sort of a mix of technical report and popular science article... It is especially important to grab the reader from the start of a paragraph because in one click they can (and probably will) move onto the next page unless you keep their interest peak; and most web users have pretty short attention spans!
6) Do all figures have captions, figure numbers and are they referred to in the text?[edit source]
Yes they do.
7) Is there at least one reference per author? Are the references cited properly and do they use the format described here? https://www.appropedia.org/Help:Footnotes[edit source]
Indeed, there is at least one reference per author, and they are cited properly.
8) Are tables included as text whenever possible? (Appropedia can search text in tables – so Lonny prefers tables to be text rather than images). This page contains information on how to make tables https://www.appropedia.org/Help:Table_examples[edit source]
Tables are incorporated throughout, and not just tables... USEFUL tables! I especially like the summary table at the end.
9) Should the document be shortened or lengthened? If so, what suggestions do you have?[edit source]
It seems to be the perfect length to me.
10) Any other questions or comments for the authors?[edit source]
Great job! It was really informative and enjoyable. You're almost there!