This article is within the scope of WikiProject Water, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Water supply-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WaterWikipedia:WikiProject WaterTemplate:WikiProject WaterWater articles
I saw a request for feedback at
WP:FEED. Here are my recommendations.
Uncapitalize the section headings as is done here
[1] (see "Page names that only differ by capitalization").
Replace "emerging" in the
WP:LEAD with something more specific.
In the history section, instead of saying they were "removed" and it was a "success", can you please be specific as to what % was captured and what kind of "success" it was? With sources?
Do sources really call barriers which sequester contaminants PRBs (which would be a misnomer in my mind, but that would be the sources problem, not ours)?
Was the first application a reaction? If so what was the efficiency?
Is anything "entirely harmless". I doubt it. Try non-toxic or something else used in a reliable source please.
Split reactive processes and reactive materials into separate sections please.
That "many" (implying most) environmental pollutants are reduced needs sourcing. The historical case was oxidized.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Water, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Water supply-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WaterWikipedia:WikiProject WaterTemplate:WikiProject WaterWater articles
I saw a request for feedback at
WP:FEED. Here are my recommendations.
Uncapitalize the section headings as is done here
[1] (see "Page names that only differ by capitalization").
Replace "emerging" in the
WP:LEAD with something more specific.
In the history section, instead of saying they were "removed" and it was a "success", can you please be specific as to what % was captured and what kind of "success" it was? With sources?
Do sources really call barriers which sequester contaminants PRBs (which would be a misnomer in my mind, but that would be the sources problem, not ours)?
Was the first application a reaction? If so what was the efficiency?
Is anything "entirely harmless". I doubt it. Try non-toxic or something else used in a reliable source please.
Split reactive processes and reactive materials into separate sections please.
That "many" (implying most) environmental pollutants are reduced needs sourcing. The historical case was oxidized.