Really great work - particularly with the e-waste feeder page -- should interlink more.
For multiple uses of the same ref use ref=" " - that will clean up your list a bit. Section 3 still needs filled in - and you should choose one method from 3 and compare it to those given in 2 - discuss the efficiency improvements.
-- Joshua 16:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Peer Review[edit source]
Nice job so far. Sorry about the tardiness of this review.
I like the intro, and all the statistics are useful, but I think you need a slightly more clear statement of the objectives of this report, and perhaps introduce some of the topics that can be seen on your table of contents. Under the category "Precious metals" there is a bit of a gammatical oddity in the second sentence, and I'm not sure how they was supposed to read. I changed a couple grammatical errors I found, but for the most part, it was well written. One thing that I might suggest, is that many times you give a breakdown (in %) of what compounds and elements are formed by a process, which I like. However, a slightly more detailed explanation as to what these chemicals are, and how they affect the environment, and why they are bad for the environment, would lend some extra validity to your number. And finally, your final category "Progress towards a sustainable future" is the most interesting part of your article, so a little extra explanation with regards to the alternative materials and manufacturing, and your processing plan would improve the overall quality of your article.
These are just my opinions, so feel free to ignore them if you think something works better another way. Nice job so far though, I definitely learned something while reading your article.
-- Robinwilkes 13:39, 24 November 2008