Talk:Building-integrated fog collectors

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Architecture Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Civil engineering Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil engineering 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. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Technology Technology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology 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. This article was the subject of an educational assignment in July 2025. Further details are available on the course page.

Review 1

Hi! I reviewed the article and found it really interesting. I had never heard about fog capturing techniques to use water. I found some minor typos (things enclosed by * ... * where supposed to be italic?) and added some links because it felt like there weren't enough in some parts of the article. Overall great job! Pertio00 (talk) 13:07, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Review 2

The article is well-structured and clear with solid references to case studies and emerging technologies. I would suggest to add some explanatory images, quantitative comparisons with other systems, and deeper insights into regulations and costs. In the Applications, Advantages and Challenges parts I would use a different format for the list. I find it a bit confusing. I would also add Further readings and External links. A part from this, I've found it very interesting and technical. Elenalbergati (talk) 13:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Review 3

Thanks for your nice introduction for Building-integrated fog collectors. It is my first time to see an article with this topic. The only one suggestion from me is to add some pictures (I know that the copyright maybe a problem), because for some concepts, it is very hard for me, a strenger for this topic, to understand. Anyway, nice work! Jack.K.J (talk) 14:09, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

I appreciate the effort that has gone into this, it's an interesting topic, so let's see if we can make the prose interesting too. Since this is a class project, could you take a look at ways to make the article read like an encyclopedia article, rather than an academic review? It's a little, erm, dry, and not very accessible to casual readers. The academic-style references ("Caldas et al.", for example) are out of place in the encyclopedia, a simple linked inline reference is sufficient, rather than interrupting the flow to call out the citation. You're going to need to describe things like Raschel and Janus meshes in more accessible terms, and if warranted, links to their own articles. Links in general would help, and a lot more concision. This should be an encyclopedia overview, and need not mention every last detail. Acroterion (talk) 14:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Courtesy @Liu277339840: please note the above expert comments. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the sentence “BIFCs are commonly categorized according to their location on the building envelope—such as façades, rooftops, or sun-shading devices” it seems to me that sun-shading devices is not a location, so it disrupts the parallel construction of the list. I’m not sure how to correct this. Perhaps an expert can substitute something like “or windows with sun-shading devices” or another location if windows is incorrect here. Timorousness (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sunshades are generally not part of the envelope - they're accessories sticking out from the envelope, usually, but not always at windows. So they are in fact usually "on" the envelope, but it is a little awkward as is. I'd just omit the word "envelope," which in any case is a term of architectural jargon that to me (an architect) is overused. Acroterion (talk) 17:09, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Acroterion. I made the edit you suggested Timorousness (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]