A timely topic of great interest to both the general public and specialists. It sounds like you'd like to dispell the negative impression left by science fiction depicting dire consequences when these materials are relased into the environment. I think I would say that, perhaps even citing one or more of the disaster movies or writings, so that your readers would be alerted up front that you find these materials useful and largely benign.
The article would benefit from being broken up into sections with titles. You can write a title, highlight it, then go to Paragraph or Heading and choose the size/format you want. You might even want to use some subheadings, also done from the same menu.
The first sentence made me think that the nanomaterials don't pose a risk for the environment yet you cited a number of findings that sounded deleterious. Unless you are sure those studies are wrong, you might want to say that the nanomaterials might pose an environmental risk but it's unclear as yet.
It looks to me like you have material on the stability (limited breakdown in nature), mainly ion release, in a couple of places. Maybe put them all together or tailor them to fit the different topics you've grouped them with. Currently they sound similar.
You said that we must be limited to looking at short term effects, and if I understand what you mean, that's because there's little breakdown in nature. If they don't break down, don't we have a risk that there will be long-term exposure of organisms to the nanomaterials? I find this confusing. LLMHoopes ( talk) 01:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Martins - You've got some really great content in this article. I am impressed by how thorough each section is. The sections will help readers compartmentalize this complex topic. Since it is a complex topic, I would encourage you to find more sources to correspond to each claim you make. It is possible you may already have these sources, but just need to add more citations. Take a look at the Hazards section from the Health and Safety Hazards of Nanomaterials article. You will notice how every time there is a claim, a citation follows either mid-paragraph or at the end.
I would also remove all phrases like "as if it didn’t suffice," or "it goes without saying" since that implies that the reader should have an opinion regarding what is sufficient or significant. I know it is particular, but maintaining a neutral tone is central to Wikipedia's style.
Again great work -- you're well on your way -- you just need a few more tweaks to this article! Will (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 00:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
A timely topic of great interest to both the general public and specialists. It sounds like you'd like to dispell the negative impression left by science fiction depicting dire consequences when these materials are relased into the environment. I think I would say that, perhaps even citing one or more of the disaster movies or writings, so that your readers would be alerted up front that you find these materials useful and largely benign.
The article would benefit from being broken up into sections with titles. You can write a title, highlight it, then go to Paragraph or Heading and choose the size/format you want. You might even want to use some subheadings, also done from the same menu.
The first sentence made me think that the nanomaterials don't pose a risk for the environment yet you cited a number of findings that sounded deleterious. Unless you are sure those studies are wrong, you might want to say that the nanomaterials might pose an environmental risk but it's unclear as yet.
It looks to me like you have material on the stability (limited breakdown in nature), mainly ion release, in a couple of places. Maybe put them all together or tailor them to fit the different topics you've grouped them with. Currently they sound similar.
You said that we must be limited to looking at short term effects, and if I understand what you mean, that's because there's little breakdown in nature. If they don't break down, don't we have a risk that there will be long-term exposure of organisms to the nanomaterials? I find this confusing. LLMHoopes ( talk) 01:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Martins - You've got some really great content in this article. I am impressed by how thorough each section is. The sections will help readers compartmentalize this complex topic. Since it is a complex topic, I would encourage you to find more sources to correspond to each claim you make. It is possible you may already have these sources, but just need to add more citations. Take a look at the Hazards section from the Health and Safety Hazards of Nanomaterials article. You will notice how every time there is a claim, a citation follows either mid-paragraph or at the end.
I would also remove all phrases like "as if it didn’t suffice," or "it goes without saying" since that implies that the reader should have an opinion regarding what is sufficient or significant. I know it is particular, but maintaining a neutral tone is central to Wikipedia's style.
Again great work -- you're well on your way -- you just need a few more tweaks to this article! Will (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 00:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)