User talk:Safors/sandbox

Peer Review The first impression I had is about the diagram even before digging into the article. The diagram is clear and detailed. The sections are appropriate and contain the related topics. The whole article is easier to read and understand. The citations are evenly distributed. Some suggested corrections:

In the "Sustainable.. Energy" section, the citation 2 is lied between "hydrogen" and "gas," is it intended?
Some continuing sentences are cited individually from the same source. Suggesting merging.
What is the purpose of the first paragraph under the "Variations" section?
Italicize the binomial nomenclature (species names).

Overall, it feels that more details can be added into the article. Some contents(phrases) are felt like simple conclusions. Suggesting to add more details about the contents and providing some explanations as well, for example, what is the proper temperature?, why is it hard to maintain a constant temperature?, how much products are made? --Hengyu0111 (talk) 07:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

addition of greg's comments: Notes from Greg:

First, I'd like to say I like your work. I think it is well structured, gets to the point, is clear, and makes good use of pictures. Wikilinks are present, which is good. Within the Variations section, though, I think it would look better if you just linked the bacteria, not the bacteria and the description of it. The first sentence in the Variations section -- the fully linked one -- doesn't seem to tie into the rest of the section. Is there a wikilink that could be added for non-sulfur producing bacteria? One discrepancy I am seeing is in the feed for the bacteria. In the mechanisms section, it sounds like the feed is strictly simple carbohydrates removed from certain sources, while the advantages section makes it sound like whole plants can be dropped into the reaction chamber. Which is it? In the advantages section, it says that this production method would "ideally" replace gas as a cheaper alternative. Is this feasible though? Are there any known scalable methods with reasonable production costs? This is doubly worth discussing because you mention in the limitations section that the bioreactor setups are expensive. In your limitations section, you state that the growth media cannot have air introduced to the system. This is further supported in the mechanisms section when you mention the air-tight bioreactor. However, your top picture shows a reaction vessel with an aerator fed from the outside. How does this tie in? Is the air-tight method only one of multiple methods? If so, it would be worth mentioning more of these methods, even if just to recognize them and state one reason why they're not worth expanding on. In the advantages section, I think a natural question to answer is "Why might this be better than dark fermentation processes? Is it just for increased hydrogen production, and is that worth the more complicated system?" Finally, I think it might be worth mentioning the different types of fuels that could be produces, especially when using algae instead of bacteria. It is my understanding that algae can produce ethanol, but also jet fuel, diesel, and multiple other fuels with wider uses than just ethanol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Safors (talk • contribs) 01:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]