Talk:Electrified reef

More photographs please!

As they say, a photograph is worth a thousand words. This article would benefit from more photographs, in particular showing more mature reefs. We also need more photos for the Biorock article showing the growth of the Biorock material itself. If you can help please add images or leave a message here saying you have some available. Thanks. PeterEastern (talk) 10:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have now found a number of additional images. More good photos always welcome though. PeterEastern (talk) 10:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move to 'Electrified reef'

I propose to move the article to 'electrified reef' which appears to be the preferred title for the subject of the article. I will leave this comment here for a few days before initiating a move. PeterEastern (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me; "electrified reef" does appear to be more commonly used, AND more descriptive. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will set this in motion. PeterEastern (talk) 12:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Expert critique of some claims in article

When I requested feedback on this article from an expert in the field this is what they said:

"If you’re want to make this article more robust, then reference [7] (Goreau, Thomas J. F.; Prong, Paulus (December 2017). "Biorock Electric Reefs Grow Back Severely Eroded Beaches in Months". Journal of Marine Science and Engineering. 5 (4): 48. doi:10.3390/jmse5040048) is extremely poor and should be removed. There is no way, as he state, that the installation of the Electrical Reefs grew back the sand in a few months. First of all his structures were large piles of rocks within gabion sacks – hardly BioRock. Second the seasonal variability of sand on a beach could have caused much of changes he reports, or even just a favourable storm (which can add to or remove large quantities of sand). I’ve no doubt the rocks he installed will have had an impact, but you would have to access their impact over a number of year rather than a few months. The electrolytic contribution (biorock) to this sand recovery will also have been negligible (much less than 1%)".

The challenge is that reference 7 is used widely within the article. I will make some of the more obvious changes to the article based on this feedback now, but in time we may need to remove all references to

-- PeterEastern (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Much of the information quoting reference 7 is found in Dr. Thomas J. Goreau's book Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration. Most citations of reference 7 can be replaced with it. Said book is currently references 5 and 6, which need to be merged. I have a copy of the book and can make the corrections.

Also, I am in contact with Dr. Thomas J. Goreau. I will ask him for clarification on the issues you pointed out. I believe he has more recent data and papers on the growth of the beaches in question. CompyN (talk) 20:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Biorock into Electrified reef

There is very little content in the Biorock article that isn't already present in Electrified reef. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that the Biorock article covers the process and chemistry of creating limestone from seawater using electricity, the many and various uses for which it was considered, how it was discovered and the patents and trademark that formerly restricted its use. One of these uses, and the only one to date that has got any traction to my knowledge is the one to create an electrified reef. Personally I found it helpful to pull these articles apart, one for the generic (formerly patented and trademarked) process and its many uses and chemistry, and the other for the specific purpose of creating a reef. I have asked a few people in the sector for this opinion and got this favourable responses to my edits. One said I’ve no real comments to make on the Biorock article. It seems like an appropriate history of Professor Hilbertz work. Personally I would like to now leave these articles alone for a while and move on to other subjects which are in more need of love and attention. PeterEastern (talk) 10:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do also note the topic on Talk:Biorock where I proposed the split back in December 2020.
-- PeterEastern (talk) 10:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing the 'merge' banners given the absence of a response to my comments above. PeterEastern (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]