Name (Resolved)[edit source]
If this is meant to be separate to Secondary wastewater treatment then perhaps it needs a more specific name? --Chriswaterguy (talk) 08:07, 10 April 2008 (PDT)
- I merged Wastewater Secondary treatment and Secondary wastewater treatment. (I used the second name, but I took two steps so that the history of the much more detailed Wastewater Secondary treatment page was preserved.)
- I moved the talk page from "Wastewater Secondary treatment" to here - Joey's comment below refers to that page. --Chriswaterguy 23:25, 3 November 2011 (PDT)
Peer Review for 115[edit source]
Web Page viewable?
The titles are clear, but work needs to be done to improve the table of contents.
Use the wiki formating with the = signs. i.e ===Brief History===
Is the audience clear?
The audience would be people learning about wastewater treatment.
Are headings used? Specific enough?
The headings are appropriate for the content.
Easy to navigate?
Yes, but as stated before the table of contents needs to have parts added.
How could the topic sentences of paragraphs be improved?
For the 'Brief History' section a better introduction could be used.
Is the writing objective?
The writing is objective, however some more sources within the text would be helpful. No sources are stated at the end of the "Activated Sludge process" or the "Trickling Filter Process".
The references table should use the wiki formating. This will allow people to click the "" or "" within a paragraph to see its respective source. This is good because it does not clutter your page with references.
Are the figures easy to understand?
The one figure makes sense, it need to be properly sized though. Also, copyrights should be observed on the images. Make sure it is either your creation or under Creative Commons. A figure illustrating each of the two processes would be useful as well.
Are the figures referred to in the text?
The figures are currently not noted in the text. The figures also carry no descripton. The source information belongs on the image page. The caption should contain information about what the image is.
Are there any questions not addressed?
What are the relative costs between the two processes?
Do other processes exist?
Is one system more reliable/effective than another?
Is one system more efficient than another?
What system does the Arcata Marsh use?
Are there links to related sites?
No external links are provided. Perhaps an easy one to add would be the HTML version of this page. Perhaps if you could find one or two other sites that have information on this topic they should be added as well.
Is the page too long, short?
The page seems just a little short. I would like to see some more information about the Arcata marsh in here. Things such as which process the Arcata marsh uses, how long they've used it, how well it works for them.
Wikipedia by nature logs all users who are logged in to the site.
Strengths of the page.
Good structure so far. The information provided is fairly strong.
Areas for Improvement
I would like to see more about the Arcata Marsh.
As noted by chriswaterguy, the page should have a more specific URL i.e. appropedia.org/Arcata_Marsh_Secondary_Treatment
More figures are needed. For the current figure, check to make sure it is not under copyright.
Use wiki formating on all headings.
Use wiki formating for references table.
Add the page to the Arcata Marsh group.
Good work thus far.
let me know on my user talk page if you have questions, or my HSU id is jth28.
Joey 01:24, 12 April 2008 (PDT)