Talk:Double liner

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Reviewed during NPP. This is a generic two word combo like "big dog" and the only source is a paper and even that is not about the term specifically. This looks like it might make a good paragraph in a suitable article.

North8000 (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@North8000:, thank you for the comment. I understand your concern but perhaps elaborating on the context will assuage the concern. First, although this design method is now extremely common, the geosynthetics industry is still in a state where various missleading terms can be used for this type of system. Some of the terms such as "leak detection layer" are overly technical for such an article and don't capture the generality of the use cases of these systems. Secondly, the one paper cited in this article is special because is authored by the inventor of this design method (JP Giroud, known as the father of geosynthetics) and the term is used in the first line of his abstract. In geosynthetics, the words of JP Giroud carry significant weight. It is possible that a more standardized terminology evolves from the industry but this should serve as a good starting point and indeed could prevail as the prevalent term in perpetuity. Pathfounder (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@Pathfounder: Perhaps step 1 of sorting this out would be to expand the article with the basics which seem to be presumed but not covered. Like "what is it used for / intended to be used for?" That would help towards establishing what the topic is and then that could lead towards a more specific title and also finding other sources. As it stands, if the only source is the person who invented it or invented the term this really couldn't pass the wp:notability requirement. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@North8000:, I appreciate the feedback and the article has now been improved.

Pathfounder (talk) 03:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I found and added two more references (1 independent one) which establish that the term is in general use. I think that the article needs a more specific title, and there is still the possibility that that this might be better covered as a section in a broader article. But I'm going to remove the tag and mark it as reviewed. Happy editing! North8000 (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: See article talk. Marking as reviewed. Happy editing!

North8000 (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)