Talk:UBC Biomass Research and Demonstration Facility

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy 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.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Higher education

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles

Adrian http://www.nexterra.ca/files/pdf/Project%20Profile_UBC%2020120912_EMAIL.pdf

guys. Here's a link to a critical article in the Ubyssey. You should do some digging and fact-checking about this, and include the relevant information in your article.Rosieredfield (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Reviews[edit]

In your title you have a typo "Demonstration Faucility" do you mean facility? Also in the first paragraph the IPCC has a wiki page and it would be a good one to link up. The end of your paragraph you have the title in all caps, I don't think this is necessary, you could probably bold it instead. The way this intro paragraph is worded is kind of indirect. I think it would be more concise to start out with something like "The UBC Biomass Research and Demonstration Facility was founded in ___ in response to the acknowledgement of climate change." And then go on to say the thing about the UBC president setting three goals and how this facility is intertwined with that.

I think the "History" section isn't needed and all the info there could be covered in the intro section. Instead you could have this section be something like "Contributors" and talk more in depth about the role of Nexterra, GE, and UBC.

Your "Technology" and "Processes" sections could be combined into one. They are both a little confusing to me. You could make it one heading "Technology" and then have a more in depth description of the mechanism and then have "Processes" and being a sub-header just in bold below.

Under the header "Projects" I think that your first set of bullets would look really nice in a table format. Also, "Project Status: Since operation began in July, 2012 until December 2014." the part "Project Status" could be bolded as all of the bullets below are in reference to that (I think?).

Is there any pictures of the facility? This would be a good thing to put in. If it is on campus it would not be too difficult to take your own photo and upload it to Wikimedia commons. Something else useful would be adding the location of the facility.

All in all, I think that there is a general lack of information. I have read the article and I still don't have a very good grasp on what the facility actually is and does. However, I think this is a good start and with some better organization and information it could be a good article.

Lacee Smith Lazershea (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rosie: Rosieredfield (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks especially for the formatting suggestions.
Photos and a map are also great suggestions.

Hello,

If this is going to be a stand-alone article, I think you would need to convert the section titled "UBC Biomass Research and Demonstration Faucility" (note the typo) into your introduction paragraph that comes before the table of contents. "UBC Biomass Research and Demonstration Faucility" would be the title of your page when you publish it anyway.

You could even integrate the "History" section into this introductory paragraph but it should be fine if you want to keep it as seperate.

I also think you could group "Technology," "Process," and "Projects" section as subheadings under one overarching section called, say for example, "Fucntioning" or "Implementation" or something like that.

I noticed you made quite a few statistical assertions in the body of your text, some of which seem to lack proper citations. I'm pretty sure you have the sources for this information, so why not put it right after it? In example you say:

"By March 24 2010, then-UBC President Stephen Troope announced UBC's dedication to climate action summed up by three future carbon reduction targets; 33% below 2007 levels by 2015, 66% below 2007 levels by 2020, and 100% below 2007 levels by 2050."

or

"The Biomass Research and Demonstration Facility was constructed as a step towards achieving UBC's goal of reducing campus greenhouse emissions to 33% below the 2007 levels by 2015."

Where do you get this information from? I would be wary of using statistics like these without immediate reference. This is the kind of stuff Wikipedia editors will pick on. If you have the source, I suggest you put it right after the sentence ends.

It seems like a very interesting article, but adding more content and structure to it would definitely make it better.

Batuhan - DieDemokratieimmer (talk) 01:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Comments from Rosie: Rosieredfield (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your cautions about the lack of references are very important.

PEER REVIEW BY KIMIA: Good job of adding the table of contents! However, I think your wiki strongly lacks descriptive content. The headings and the layout is proper in my perspective, but it is the info under that is lacking. I think you should elaborate more on the technological aspects of it followed by the history. Also, I think you should add an intro because it helps readers new what to expect(The first line in your wiki does not sound like a sufficient intro). However, I liked the process explanation of it and enjoyed how you discussed the projects. I highly suggest that you add images It makes your content more interesting and easier to understand. I also realized that some of your citations were not properly done, make sure you add your in-text citations in there so we can know where your sources come from- adding more hyperlinks can also help. But your refrence list at the end is good though. Cheers!:) Kpars100100 (talk) 02:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rosie: Rosieredfield (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right about the need for more description. We're given lots of facts but we're left on our own to put them together into the big picture.

Peer Review by Arik T.[edit]

I agree with the previous reviewers in that the first few paragraphs in the first section did not seem to be a summary or an introduction about the facility. What you had there though could follow from a short introduction or perhaps go to the history section, either way a proper introduction is needed. I also recommend adding links to General Electric, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Syngas, Stephen Toope, etc, if their wikipedia pages exist. A general infobox about the facility (with information about the date built/founded, type of facility, size, etc) I would say is something that you really would want to add. Some general editing, such as the all caps on UBC Biomass Research and Demonstration Facility, the lack of a colon at the end of "There are four main steps...", and the odd bolding of some of the words (Nexterra, GE), lack of period at the sentence about GE, should be fixed to make the article more consistent and readable. A picture or two of the facility/logo would be welcome, but I think it's understandable if there wasn't any available to be used on your article. Adding citations on the statistics in the article would also be nice. About the technology section, it might be better to merge it with the first section, if there isn't any more information to be added to that sections...it just seems a bit empty, so merging it with another one might make the flow of your article better. Cheers!

Attt7 (talk) 07:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rosie: Rosieredfield (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An Infobox would be a great addition, especially because this article is about a technical facility.

Peer Review by Wendy A.[edit]

This page is not so accessible to the layman. The lay-out is a bit confusing and subsections could be rethought or reorganized, as others have pointed out. I think that most of the information that you have under the introduction should actually go under the “History” subsection and most of the information under the “History” subsection should be in the introduction. “The Biomass Research and Demonstration Facility” needs to be introduced right away in the first paragraph, since the first paragraph should contain the most basic information whereas the current introductory paragraph that you have gives more background information on policies and parties that played a part in the founding of the facility. If you take “History” as your introductory paragraph, I think that the first or second sentence needs to explain, in a general, sense what the facility is or does. I think that this is what you have written under “Technology”, but the reader shouldn’t have to get to the end of the page before they get a basic sense of what The Biomass Research and Demonstration Facility even is. The section “Process”, I think, explains the scientific and engineering principles behind the facility, so it seems that a more accurate title describing the information found in this section is needed (“Scientific and Engineering Principles”?). This information also needs to be better introduced and somehow made more accessible to the layman, otherwise people will stop reading. More explanatory sentences and fewer fragment sentences would improve this section. This is a cool idea for a page. Can’t wait to see the finished product. Sciencegeek3332 (talk) 06:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rosie: Rosieredfield (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your detailed comments about the Introduction are particularly helpful.

General feedback from Rosie[edit]

THE PEER REVIEWS ARE FULL OF EXCELLENT ADVICE. FOLLOW IT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosieredfield (talk • contribs) 14:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How will this page fit into the other Wikipedia information about UBC? Are there already separate Wikipedia pages about other UBC facilities?
You need a real Introduction section above the Table of Contents.
Your present Introduction belongs under the History heading.
Your article should not duplicate information that is available elsewhere on Wikipedia. Is there already an article that provides the information you give under 'Process'? If so, link to it, and here give only a brief summary and an explanation of how the UBC process differs (if it does).
If you tell readers the process uses a 'Jenbacher engine' you need to either explain what that is or link to a Wikipedia page that does.
Try to give some overview of what the facility has demonstrated (what UBC has learned from it). What were the questions the facility was supposed to answer?
Photos and diagrams are definitely needed. The reader has no idea what this facility is. Is it a building? A machine?
The Technology section says that the facility 'will produce', but it's been running for a while. What does it produce, and how is that used?
You don't need to give the date when you retrieved each link in your references, but links to articles should include information about who the authors are and when the article was published. (I can't tell which articles are old and which are new.)

Rosieredfield (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]