Wikipedia:Peer review/Incineration/archive1

Incineration[edit]

This article has had a number of authors and is reaching a good stage for a wider peer review--Alex 09:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is looking good. Overall, I think it needs a thorough grammar review. It also has several sentences that appear to have landed in the wrong section or have landed in the article twice. If possible, you may also try to use a few more pictures (some other than the exterior of a facility would also be good). Keep working on it but it is already looking like a good article.

The caption on the lead picture needs to be modified. The facility is not demolished. I read in the linked article that the facility is currently partially demolished. A more precise wording in the caption would be "decommissioned."
The sentence "An incinerator is a furnace for burning refuse and is vastly inferior to a modern incinerator design with flue gas cleaning" contradicts itself. A modern incinerator is also an incinerator and cannot be inferior to itself. I understand your intent but the sentence needs to be reworded.
In the section Rotary-kiln incinerators, you could link the phrase "bag houses" to an article on filtration since it is a specialist word that many people will not understand.
I like the idea of listing pros and cons of incineration but I have a request. Make all items in the list grammatically parallel. For example, "There are still concerns by many about the health effects of dioxin and furan emissions into the atmosphere" and "The expense of building and operating an incinerator" are not parallel. This can be a good section with some cleanup.
You may consider utilizing a better reference for the presence of furan and dioxin emissions. I appreciate the work that Milton Beychok has contributed to Wikipedia but there are wrong and right times to reference your own work. In this case, I think that emission inventories from a technical journal is unnecessary (unless you wanted to give numbers regarding emissions).

Leeannedy 19:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks for your constructive comments--Alex 09:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 22:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After a quick look, I think the article needs more background. What role did incineration play in waste management historically? You touched a little on how the methods of incineration changed, but it was mainly state of the art 25 years ago vs state of art today. This needs to be more in depth. Also I noticed you sometimes used the word "modern". That word is entirely subjective and needs to be rephrased with something more precise.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bigitte, I take your points regarding the history of incineration needing more work. Related to the word "modern" it has been used to distinguish between waste-to-energy which in itself is subjective and is a marketing tool used to pretend incineration isnt incineration!--Alex 09:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remember it being used as "modern incinerator". A modern incinerator means absolutely nothing except that sometime in the past incinerators were different. I imagine that someone from Albania has a very different idea of a what modern incinerator is than someone from the UK.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 15:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are right a modern incinerator is what incinerator sellers and politicians like to call a waste-to-energy plant. This is misleading as there are many ways to produce energy from waste not related to burning. If you have a better/more accurate term I would welcome the suggestion.Alex 09:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]