User talk:Patel almitra/Plastic recycling and Bio-Polymers in India

Copyright issues

I, Almitra Patel, have copied an article from an external source. Yet, I do not think this should be speedily deleted, as it is my own writing, from my website. http://www.almitrapatel.com I do hope this tag can be addressed as soon as possible. I am trying my bets to contribute material that Wikipedia does not seem to have as of now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patel almitra (talk • contribs) 12:14, 13 June 2011

References

I've moved a recently added second References section here:

recycling technologies

Many lessons can be drawn and adapted from similar legislation around the world

ecofriendly packaging rules

References as footnotes should be inline with the article text and only used to directly support specific assertions made in the article itself. The above are really external links to further online material of potential use to readers or future editors. I have retained 1. in an External links in the article. There is a problem with 2. as the link throws up a page with the message "The requested page does not exist". The problem with numbers 3. and 4. is that they go to the generic home pages of the sites, rather than to a specifically useful page. Note that 4. is entirely in French and therefore probably not suitable for English Wikipedia and while 3. is a German commerical site with an English section, it's pretty hard to see where or what the relative information is.

In the actual References section of the article I have added the original article from EnviroNews (October 2003), of which current Wikipedia article is a verbatim copy. Voceditenore (talk) 09:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment moved from article

Note I moved the comment below from the article. Comments from editors never go in the article itself, only on the talk page. Voceditenore (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Moved comment The original author is trying to make changes in accord with the comments below, thank you for the constructive criticism, do re-read it often to check if it is being more streamlined to Wikipedia's standards. Thanks! Patel almitra (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)Ghost Writer putting in edits for User

Article moved back from user space

Note I moved the comment below from the article. Comments from editors never go in the article itself, only here on this talk page. Please do not add comments like this to the article again. Voceditenore (talk) 11:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Moved comment: I have tried to address each of these comments. Do let me know how else I can go about improving it. Thanks

• In my my view, this article should not have been moved back into the main encylopedia by its author without an independent review first. It has some references tacked on, some of which are not really relevant and others with broken links, but it still has all the problems present at Articles for deletion/Plastic Recycling and the need for Bio-polymers in India. Note, I also moved the article to conform with the capitalisation and spelling practice on Wikipedia from Plastic recycling and Bio-Polymers in India to Plastic recycling and biopolymers in India. Voceditenore (talk) 11:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• PLEASE DO NOT move this article to main space again until it has been fully reviewed by independent editors or an administrator. Thank you. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• You can go to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Ask for a review and post a link to the draft, where a consensus of outside editors will be reached on whether or not it can be moved into article space. If yes, an administrator will move it. In the meantime, I've asked for help on this draft at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. Voceditenore (talk) 12:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Why this article needs to be almost completely re-written

As a preamble to all this, it is crucially important to read What Wikipedia is not and Neutral point of view and really try to understand what those policies mean in the context of re-writing this article.

The current article (at 28 June 2011) is full of personal commentary, speculation, and opinion

The tone should always remain formal, impersonal, and dispassionate. There should be no indication whatsoever in the article what the editors' (and thereby Wikipedia's) opinion is or what their recommendations are. The following are just a few of the many, many examples which violate this key requirement:

• "Sadly, this is often disparaged as “backwardness” or under-development, rather than recognizing and appreciating the natural conservation culture of Indians"
• "Unfortunately, not a single Indian or foreign industry has “volunteered” to sign up"
• "New legislation could be framed to promote product stewardship, producer responsibility and waste minimization in India, similar to such legislation elsewhere."
• "Further study could focus on whether, where and how biodegradable plastics can substitute the non-recycled items".
• "Clean-ups would be more successful if higher prices for waste-pickers were negotiated."
• "This may happen because the year 2002 had seen an exciting new use for such waste." (Note also that this whole sentence is meaningless in 2011. See also time constructs below)
• "If biopolymers can be foamed, this is a worthwhile niche to explore."
• "India urgently needs policy concepts and legal requirements like those in the EU countries and USA to prevent its cities from drowning in non-biodegradable waste."
• "It is also important to promote or even require the use of biopolymer"
• "New legislation and market strategies in the Indian context could help promote product stewardship, producer responsibility and waste minimization."
• "Lessons and laws gleaned from similar legislations around the world, like those in the US and EU, could help India adopt waste minimization and eco-friendly packaging, and revolutionize this industry."
• Such unethical commercial exploitation needs to be put a stop to,"
• "Despite the downsides, a mandatory use could improve the ecofriendly recyclability of the products that use micro-wires."

Unecyclopedic use of relative time constructs which are meaningless and in fact often refer to events, opinions, etc. from 8 years ago

Again just a few of the many examples. They are fine for a newspaper article, but none of them should be in an encyclopedia article. Note also that even when words like "now" or "currently" are removed, there need to be explicit dates for statistics, etc.

• "The Waste Management Rules now direct municipalities..." (It should say something like "As of 2011, the Waste Management Rules direct municipalities...", if indeed that is the case)
• "A money-making racket is going on in cities like Pune..." (Still? As of when? It's referenced to a 7 year old report, which incidentally doesn't directly support that assertion at all.)
• "On the technical front, some research is currently going on..."
• "Currently, most e-Waste is burnt in bulk to recover..."
• "There is yet no recycling market for Tetrapaks..."

References must directly support the assertions and statistics and they must be from published reliable sources

The commentary below refers to the problematic/unacceptable references in this version of the article

[2] A youth "viewspaper" with reader generated content, not a reliable source and in fact, it basically quotes the Patel 2003 article in several places.

[4] Powerpoint version of Patel 2003 article, not independent of it and an unpublished document uploaded on Docstoc

[5] Commercial site and contents do not verify the statement

[6] Commercial site and contents do not verify the statement

[7] No link and no indication whether it supports the assertion or is merely on a similar topic. Minimally needs a quote from the source.

[9] Broken link (should be http://envfor.nic.in/legis/hsm/plastic.html), but it doesn't support the assertion of "uneconomical" at all.

[10] Unpublished document from 2004 uploaded to Scribd but undated and no authorship ascribed in the footnote

[11] Duplicate of [10]

[12] Commercial site in Germany, no link, only generic indication of the home page, and no indication that it supports the assertion at all

[13] Commercial site in India, no link, only generic indication of the home page, and no indication that it supports the assertion at all

[14] Referenced to a blog, not a reliable source

[15] Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference

[16] Unpublished slide show on www.slideshare.net

[17]-[21] and :[23]-[24] Overkill number of links on re-recycling/replacement of styrofoam in the US, many of which are to commericial sites and press releases, but nothing which supports a far more central assertion: "India has neither any recyclers of Styrofoam nor any laws yet to phase it out."

[22] Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference

[26] Merely describes various machines on their manufacturer's web site but doesn't support the assertion that "in Maharashtra State, the Municipal Corporation has purchased and installed in their own shed near their waste-yard, a machine from Mane Electricals at Pune"

[27] Reliable source, but no evidence that it supports the assertion that "A money-making racket is going on in cities like Pune"

There remain many many central assertions and statistics for which no references at all have been provided, unless recourse is made in each case to Patel 2003.

Voceditenore (talk) 18:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)