Talk:Sustainable biofuel/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I have read the article and am likely to place it "on hold" pending resolution of some issues.

• Reference formatting is haphazard and not up to standard. Use of citation templates, such as Template:Cite web and Template:Cite book, may improve the formatting. Please include the authors of material where you know this: really, include as much information about the reference as you can find.
• Sections and layout are also haphazard and disorganized. I would recommend to delineate more clearly how you break down the topic. The three examples of plants in southeast Asia might be well placed as subsections with level 3 headers under a super-section named "Plants used as sustainable biofuel" or similar. The two international consortiums can also be placed under a single larger heading, titled "International collaboration on sustainable biofuels" or similar.
• Use of quotations: If you can summarize material without quoting it, this may improve readability. I am not sure if the long quotation of the international group's 12 principle adds enough value to justify the reader's time. The other quotation earlier in the article is good, but the sentence used to introduce it only tells half of what the quote actually says. Maybe change the sentence to say there are trade-offs, not just advantages.
• First world versus third world point of view: The plants in Asia are thought of as a novelty, but common use in the United States of maize for ethanol production is treated in a different section. I am not sure if the distinction holds water. I noticed the article on food vs. fuel singles out Brazil for good sustainability, but this article says nothing about Brazil. In brief, a more careful presentation of biofuel sustainability worldwide may help; see Template:Worldwide view.
• In the first sentence, transport fuel is linked to liquid fuel. Why not just write it as liquid fuel?
• The opposing point of view, about why some applications of biofuels might not be sustainable, is given only brief, dismissive mention in the "Biofuel options" section. Perhaps this is commensurate with the nature of the issue, but my understanding is that it's an important issue and should be given a little more air time to explain why biofuel sustainability is an important concept with novel applications.
• All that said, this is a fine article. Upon proper formatting of the references and restructuring of the sections, I will probably pass it, pending further review. The other concerns are more general in nature. Crystal whacker (talk) 23:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for the thorough review. Appreciate the suggestions made and will try to act on these to improve the article. In particular I will improve the reference list, but would like to avoid the use of citation templates, as I find they make the text difficult to read in edit mode. Johnfos (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Have now done what I can to act on your recommendations and try to bring this article up to GA. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 01:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I still think the authors should be included in the references, but I'll do that myself. It should take just a few minutes. Crystal whacker (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I added authors and also linked to publication wiki article where appropriate. The article meets standards now, and I will pass it. If you submit it to Featured Article Candidates I think you will be asked to use citation templates, but for Good Article purposes it's fine. Congratulations on an excellent piece of work. Crystal whacker (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for completing this review. I have been through the GA process quite a few times but have seldom met a reviewer who has such a fine attention to detail as well as a good grasp of the bigger picture... And a willingness to go in and make improvements. Much appreciated! Johnfos (talk) 18:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)