Talk:Nanoremediation

Environment Low‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merge proposal

This article overlaps almost exactly with the current content of Groundwater remediation applications of nanotechnology, with both articles discussing the same topics including iron nanoparticles and groundwater/wastewater treatment. How would people feel about merging that article into this one? Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 00:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My intent in creating this page was to, as you put it in your original comment, have a broader scope, but I agree that the two pages overlap substantially and merging may be appropriate. Given that to date most nanoremediation projects have been related to groundwater, there may not after all be enough material currently to keep them separate. The groundwater page also includes general technical material that could integrate well with this page.--E.Thorsos (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do the merge. Feel free to remove anything you feel is unsupported or poorly written. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 23:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've rearranged/integrated some of the merged text and removed or replaced some content that seemed unsupported. I see a lot of highly-cited research synthesis on surface water/wastewater applications that I have yet to digest or include. --E.Thorsos (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Primary references flag

This article had two primary references, which I replaced; all references are now secondary or tertiary. Is it a problem to remove the "primary references" tag? --E.Thorsos (talk) 15:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you've fixed the problem you can remove the banner. Note that there's no rule that says you can't use primary scientific sources at all. It's best practice to write from secondary sources because they put work in context and establish notability, but if there's a detail that's only included in a research paper, you can cite that in addition to the reviews. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 23:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]