This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Does anyone know if the Environment Agency qualifies as an Executive Agency? I was going to include it on the list of executive agenices but I wasnt sure. 81.77.29.41 02:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes. The Environment Agency is an executive NDPB funded by both DEFRA and WAG. (you might also want to look at Countryside Council for Wales and Natural England currently omitted from the list) . Velela 07:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I dont think that the EA is an Executive Agency in the same way that say, CEFAS is an Executive Agency of DEFRA. Executive Agency staff are civil servants as if they worked for their 'executive' departments, EA staff are not. The EA are quite correctly identified as a Non-Departmental Public Body but this is not the same as an Executive Agency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.162.93 ( talk) 13:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion, the length and the detail of the pig and poultry section recently added to this article is simply ridiculous. Such detail is not needed and the section is almost as long as the entire rest of the article. Would someone please trim that section down? - mbeychok 17:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I note that the "Organizational Management" section includes the names of the current directors of each of the Directorates. Wikipedia includes the environmental agencies of many other nations ... and I believe that none of those others get into that level of detail. Is it really necessary here? The names will change with time and require monitoring and revisions.
I don't see how that level of detailed minutia is necessary. What do others think? - mbeychok 20:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
As this source indicates, there has been a period of uncertainty, which the appointment of a new Chairman somewhat alleviates. The imminent departure of the current CEO is also of interest.
The Directors of Finance and Water Management are also very close to retirement age, but since they haven't announced their intentions yet I haven't changed anything in that section. OceanKiwi ( talk) 12:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
In order to keep the length of the article relevant, and avoid unnecessary detail, I've removed the following:
The Environment Agency is also responsible for these navigations
Much like the previous pig and poultry section, we need to keep the article balanced, with a general overview of what the Environment Agency does. Whilst it's navigation responsibilities are important, there is already a sub-section which provides sufficient information. Happy to hear other opinions on this... RTFArt ( talk) 20:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I must concur with Motmit. The text relating to navigation was not excessive in any way, and I would support its retention as it was before your edit. Please don't delete it again without consensus. Mayalld ( talk) 15:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Not being one to waste much time on talk pages - preferring to add to WP as an information source, I will just make a few observations.
DBTR - Motmit ( talk) 07:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
As others have pointed out, prose is preferred to lists. I feel that the version Motmit keeps reverting is at least a start, and covers the relevant information. If you have any issues with the grammar or the links aren't right, feel free to improve. RTFArt ( talk) 23:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe a link or see also to this map: http://www.aina.org.uk/about_aina/documents/95825GBWaterways.pdf would be useful? Although it doesn't seem to have been updated for a while. Rednaxela ( talk) 19:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
A request for a Wikipedia:Third opinion was listed five days ago ( diff). Is a third opinion still needed? — Athaenara ✉ 22:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
References
Very nice work! A few suggestions:
Overall well done and well written. I would upgrade to B class if it weren't for the problem with lack of citations--give me a heads up when these are provided and I'll look again. Definitely drop me a note if I can provide any further explanation or be of any help with anything. delldot talk 02:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Many of the references would benefit from being formatted as Citation Templates. Have changed some. Help appreciated. Tim P ( talk) 22:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Picking up from what Tim P has started above, the Environment Agency has completely reworked it's website and consequently broken a whole bunch of links and refences. This will take a bit of effort to find the relevant information, or new sources if they have been redacted. RTFArt ( talk) 18:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
The notional £3.5 billion figure does not appear on either of the directly linked web pages ref 7 and 8 and therefore may be considered unfounded. It does appear in the 2000 document [1] p. 26, but not as far as I can see in the 2004 document. I suggest changing these references to support the statement Regards Motmit ( talk) 21:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The last para quotes the 2001 Fleming report as recommending the break up of the EA into a separate Floods Authority. Reading the report I can see no such recommendation. Rather the report complains that there are too many authorities involved (ie those dealing with minor rivers) and recommends "responsibility of flood risk management should be consolidated around one executive agency". It further states "The single authority need not be a new body but could be an extension of the role of an existing participant". Regards Motmit ( talk) 19:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Motmit, AFAIK the NCE is an independent publication - it is not part of the ICE, or an ICE publication. The criticism section as it currently stands is mostly fair IMHO, with references to support all the statements made. There is too much stuff about the Pitt report recommendations though, which are a bit irrelevant for a criticism section. Does the Pitt Review/Report require it's own article to cover this? OceanKiwi ( talk) 00:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
I feel that the current overall structure, which deals with the details of what the EA does before getting into how it is organised works quite well - as most readers will be interested in the former than the latter. Because the EA is a bit of a mish-mash of regulatory bodies and the old NRA service provision stuff, it's always going to be easier for a reader to understand if these bits are dealt with separately. If you, or others, have another suggestion, by all means share. OceanKiwi ( talk) 17:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I have been trying to fill a gaping hole in Wikipedia by creating and writing most of Environmental monitoring and Freshwater environmental quality parameters (which probably needs to change to Environmental quality control parameters). On the assumption that those watching this page may either be working for the Environment Agency or have an interest in it, I would appreciate other editors contributing knowledge and references. Many thanks Velela Velela Talk 11:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Add Topic:
The EA is concerned with climate change and Energy. [1]
99.190.82.217 ( talk) 07:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Almost everything here, including the logo has been tampered with, and not for the better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.136.120.27 ( talk) 18:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Environment Agency. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Environment Agency. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Environment Agency. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Environment Agency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Environment Agency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Does anyone know if the Environment Agency qualifies as an Executive Agency? I was going to include it on the list of executive agenices but I wasnt sure. 81.77.29.41 02:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes. The Environment Agency is an executive NDPB funded by both DEFRA and WAG. (you might also want to look at Countryside Council for Wales and Natural England currently omitted from the list) . Velela 07:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I dont think that the EA is an Executive Agency in the same way that say, CEFAS is an Executive Agency of DEFRA. Executive Agency staff are civil servants as if they worked for their 'executive' departments, EA staff are not. The EA are quite correctly identified as a Non-Departmental Public Body but this is not the same as an Executive Agency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.162.93 ( talk) 13:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion, the length and the detail of the pig and poultry section recently added to this article is simply ridiculous. Such detail is not needed and the section is almost as long as the entire rest of the article. Would someone please trim that section down? - mbeychok 17:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I note that the "Organizational Management" section includes the names of the current directors of each of the Directorates. Wikipedia includes the environmental agencies of many other nations ... and I believe that none of those others get into that level of detail. Is it really necessary here? The names will change with time and require monitoring and revisions.
I don't see how that level of detailed minutia is necessary. What do others think? - mbeychok 20:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
As this source indicates, there has been a period of uncertainty, which the appointment of a new Chairman somewhat alleviates. The imminent departure of the current CEO is also of interest.
The Directors of Finance and Water Management are also very close to retirement age, but since they haven't announced their intentions yet I haven't changed anything in that section. OceanKiwi ( talk) 12:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
In order to keep the length of the article relevant, and avoid unnecessary detail, I've removed the following:
The Environment Agency is also responsible for these navigations
Much like the previous pig and poultry section, we need to keep the article balanced, with a general overview of what the Environment Agency does. Whilst it's navigation responsibilities are important, there is already a sub-section which provides sufficient information. Happy to hear other opinions on this... RTFArt ( talk) 20:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I must concur with Motmit. The text relating to navigation was not excessive in any way, and I would support its retention as it was before your edit. Please don't delete it again without consensus. Mayalld ( talk) 15:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Not being one to waste much time on talk pages - preferring to add to WP as an information source, I will just make a few observations.
DBTR - Motmit ( talk) 07:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
As others have pointed out, prose is preferred to lists. I feel that the version Motmit keeps reverting is at least a start, and covers the relevant information. If you have any issues with the grammar or the links aren't right, feel free to improve. RTFArt ( talk) 23:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe a link or see also to this map: http://www.aina.org.uk/about_aina/documents/95825GBWaterways.pdf would be useful? Although it doesn't seem to have been updated for a while. Rednaxela ( talk) 19:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
A request for a Wikipedia:Third opinion was listed five days ago ( diff). Is a third opinion still needed? — Athaenara ✉ 22:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
References
Very nice work! A few suggestions:
Overall well done and well written. I would upgrade to B class if it weren't for the problem with lack of citations--give me a heads up when these are provided and I'll look again. Definitely drop me a note if I can provide any further explanation or be of any help with anything. delldot talk 02:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Many of the references would benefit from being formatted as Citation Templates. Have changed some. Help appreciated. Tim P ( talk) 22:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Picking up from what Tim P has started above, the Environment Agency has completely reworked it's website and consequently broken a whole bunch of links and refences. This will take a bit of effort to find the relevant information, or new sources if they have been redacted. RTFArt ( talk) 18:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
The notional £3.5 billion figure does not appear on either of the directly linked web pages ref 7 and 8 and therefore may be considered unfounded. It does appear in the 2000 document [1] p. 26, but not as far as I can see in the 2004 document. I suggest changing these references to support the statement Regards Motmit ( talk) 21:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The last para quotes the 2001 Fleming report as recommending the break up of the EA into a separate Floods Authority. Reading the report I can see no such recommendation. Rather the report complains that there are too many authorities involved (ie those dealing with minor rivers) and recommends "responsibility of flood risk management should be consolidated around one executive agency". It further states "The single authority need not be a new body but could be an extension of the role of an existing participant". Regards Motmit ( talk) 19:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Motmit, AFAIK the NCE is an independent publication - it is not part of the ICE, or an ICE publication. The criticism section as it currently stands is mostly fair IMHO, with references to support all the statements made. There is too much stuff about the Pitt report recommendations though, which are a bit irrelevant for a criticism section. Does the Pitt Review/Report require it's own article to cover this? OceanKiwi ( talk) 00:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
I feel that the current overall structure, which deals with the details of what the EA does before getting into how it is organised works quite well - as most readers will be interested in the former than the latter. Because the EA is a bit of a mish-mash of regulatory bodies and the old NRA service provision stuff, it's always going to be easier for a reader to understand if these bits are dealt with separately. If you, or others, have another suggestion, by all means share. OceanKiwi ( talk) 17:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I have been trying to fill a gaping hole in Wikipedia by creating and writing most of Environmental monitoring and Freshwater environmental quality parameters (which probably needs to change to Environmental quality control parameters). On the assumption that those watching this page may either be working for the Environment Agency or have an interest in it, I would appreciate other editors contributing knowledge and references. Many thanks Velela Velela Talk 11:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Add Topic:
The EA is concerned with climate change and Energy. [1]
99.190.82.217 ( talk) 07:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Almost everything here, including the logo has been tampered with, and not for the better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.136.120.27 ( talk) 18:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Environment Agency. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Environment Agency. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Environment Agency. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Environment Agency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Environment Agency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)