Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anaerobic digestion

Anaerobic digestion

I'm self nominating this article for featured article because it has passed a good article review and has been peer reviewed. I have spend a lot of time working on it and would like it to be considered by the wider community as a featured article. This article relates to the topic of anaerobic digestion a form of waste treatment technology that is able to generate renewable energy. Alex 12:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I enjoyed reading this; it's accessible and I learned much. As science and I are frequently complete strangers, this is a major plus. I have some criticisms. Fun though the assyrian bathwater anecdote might be, isn't there a more substantial source to back it up? And, incidentally, some of the shorter sections are scarcely referenced at all. Finally, WP:MOS#Dates isn't keen on superscript for ordinals (e.g. 17^th century). --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 13:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Roger, I am pleased that you enjoyed the article. re-Assrian bathwater I am presently consulting with people on the anaerobic digestion forum to find more information and the original source of this. I will look over the shorter sections and find suitable references. Thanks againAlex 13:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done I have now significantly added to the references, I have also addressed the dating issues. Finally I deleted the reference for Assyrian biogas, I cannot find a suitable reference anywhere even though there are hundreds of quotes on the web.Alex 14:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll abstain for the moment though as I'd like to see what other editors with a firmer science footing say. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 07:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good quality article. In the past there haven't been many clear, thorough articles on water and wastewater but Alex is changing that. Good work! --Chriswaterguy talk 14:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, peer review archived, please note per the instructions at both WP:PR and WP:FAC that the article shouldn't be listed simultaneously at both places. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now I was hoping you weren't going to nominate this for FA yet because it still has lots of work to do, and places that need to be expanded. The article is really starting to take shape, though, it is not stable enough now to be featured, perhaps in a few weeks it will be ready. Anyway, I'll list some more comments:
Make sure the content is under the right headings, for example I found the following under "Applications"

"After sorting or screening to remove physical contaminants, such as metals and plastics, from the feedstock the material is often shredded, minced, or hydrocrushed[19] to increase the surface area available to microbes in the digesters and hence increase the speed of digestion. The material is then fed into an airtight digester where the anaerobic treatment takes place." This belongs in a different section.

Image:Anaerobic digesters overhead view.jpg I can see the brown liquid, so point it out in the caption
Must explain the steps in the process better, say why each step is necessary. For example, the hydrolysis step is necessary to break down the matter so that the bacteria can digest it, right? Tell us more and expand each step.
"This contrasts to carbon in fossil fuels that has been sequestered in the earth for many thousands of years." You must mean millions of years
"can be considered to be sustainable and biogas considered to be a renewable fuel." Some people believe that this can be considered, in some circles, to possibly be a weak way to write a statement.
Emphasize/contrast the end products more clearly between anaerobic and aerobic digestion
Emphasize why anaerobic digestion is better than simple aerobic digestion, in that the value of the end products can be used.
Avoid abbreviations like BOD and COD; I would get rid of AD as an abbreviation since you hardly even use it! (nor should you!)
how do siloxanes get into the biogas?
"landfilled" is this a verb now? 2 places
The lead should mention, in passing at least, that biogas is mostly methane and carbon dioxide. Just a brief mention is all it takes; do it in the lead.
"hydrocrushed" what?

I strongly urge you to withdraw the nom now so you can work on it in peace, for 2-3 weeks or so. Once it's ready then relist here and start with a clean slate. I am willing to work with you on this one, and if I have time I can make some edits to the prose too. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 19:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Hi Jeff, Happy to withdraw it for now if you think it will be worthwhile. The feedback is appreciated. Would also appreciate your assistance getting it to the final shape for FA.--Alex 07:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]