Wikipedia:Peer review/Plastic recycling/archive1

Plastic recycling

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've been editing this page fairly continuously since early June. Apart from some contributions from User:Sadads, regarding industry lobbying, everything here is essentially my work. I don't usually edit in this way and my own experience of large single-editor pages is that they can be idiosyncratic. I'd really like to avoid that here. I consider this an important topic and I'd like to see it done right. Primarily I'd like some feedback on what I've done wrong and what improvements or gaps need sorting.

Thanks, Project Osprey (talk) 22:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wretchskull

Glad to see important articles here!

Many sentences and paragraphs are unreferenced. There are myriads of sources available in google scholar, the Wikilibrary, etc. on this topic.
Most dated information can be updated (preferably 2019-present), as most sources are around the 2000s.
The "Plastic waste composition" section relies on a table and a pie chart; an article this notable would probably require expansion with prose.

Good luck - Wretchskull (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting in touch. I think I can address the first and last points. The middle one is a bit tougher, detailed statistics aren't often open access (the few that are have been endlessly recycled). I'm also trying to avoid WP:SYNTH by not combining different data sets, which in places has made it necessary to rely on older but more complete data. Obviously, as newer stuff becomes available I'll try to update, the whole area is evolving each year. Can I ask how easy you found the technical bits to follow? --Project Osprey (talk) 11:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wretchskull: to ensure they saw the above question. @Project Osprey: are you still working on this article? Z1720 (talk) 15:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry. My plan had been to wait until a number of comments had come in and then make the changes all at once - in case there was overlapping or conflicting advice. I remain active. --Project Osprey (talk) 15:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Project Osprey: Sorry for the delay! Regarding your points, I dare to say the article is readable to the average Wikipedia reader, and you're right that avoiding WP:SYNTH should be kept in mind. I forgot to mention a few other things about WP:MOS, though I am sure you have already have that considered: In the "Electrostatic separation" section, a "main article" should be used and not a link of it in its prose, plus "Energy recovery" has a parenthesis in the first sentence where commas should be. Feel free to ping me and ask any other questions. Wretchskull (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wretchskull: I've made a stab at most of the simple points: removed parentheses, added 'main article' links, added some text in "Plastic waste composition" section, some other bits of clean-up. What's left to do is mostly referencing. At 130 references I don't think the article is too bad, is there anything particularly notable that needs referencing? - I'm unsure whether to add a section discussing why different plastics are and aren't recycled, would that be going too technical? --Project Osprey (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Project Osprey: The article looks great, but referencing is a must. Everything written must be referenced no matter how big or small the article is. As for article size and content, I would perhaps trim unnecessary details and move them to their respective main articles. If you find sources discussing recycling exceptions then that is definitely worth mentioning after the trim. Wretchskull (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]