![]() | Water supply and sanitation in Colombia was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've signed up to review this, but have been delayed for various reasons, will start next week, and count hold time from then. I note that there are many unreferenced statements, and the article needs careful copyediting as per manual of style - as an obvious example, some headings are capitalised other than on first word. Jimfbleak ( talk) 06:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The issues raised above have now been fixed and the articles has been renominated. Looking forward to comments.-- Mschiffler ( talk) 02:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I will place the nomination on hold. In my opinion this article is close to GA status. I think with a little work it can pass. Here are my comments based from the Good article criteria
These are not required in the GA criteria, but are friendly suggestions:
Davemeistermoab ( talk) 05:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
These are very useful comments. I just have two points of clarification: First, the lead section is so short, because when the same article was reviewed to become a good article on the Spanish Wikipedia we were told the lead section was too long, so we moved most of its content to the overview section below the lead section. What you'd like to see in the lead section (a summary of the sector history) is included in that overview section. Second, external cooperation and external links are actually quite different subjects. I have expanded the external cooperation section somewhat to make that clear. Ideally the external cooperation section should have more explanatory text, thus making it clearer that it is not just a collection of links, as it was in the initial version.-- Mschiffler ( talk) 15:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
With the recent changes, most of the items mentioned have been resolved. One that remains is the separate sources and references sections. Davemeistermoab ( talk) 02:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of March 2, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:
The article is quite long. If any further expansions are attempted, I would be careful to compress existing sections that may no longer be relevant. There is a large backlog of GA nominated articles. I encourage you to help in the review of an article. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Davemeistermoab ( talk) 16:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I've read part of the article so far and it generally looks good. Well done. In the Access section, I find this sentence confusing: "Data for water[17] and sanitation[18] based on "Reproductive and Sexual Health in Colombia".[19]" What data is it referring to -- the table above it? But then why does the table also have footnotes? And if the data are based on footnote 19, then what are footnotes 17 and 18 for? I suggest putting the name of the study "Reproductive and Sexual Health in Colombia" inside a footnote only, unless there's some reason to mention it and then use it in a full sentence, which that isn't.
I find that this sounds too repetitive, having already appeared in the lead section: "...access to water increased only slightly from 92% to 93%..." If it could be put into different words, maybe expanded with a little more information or using a different word from "slightly", then I think it would sound better. For example, maybe "In 2004, access to water was only 1% higher than in 1990 (93% versus 92%)."
Good work. Thanks for doing these articles. -- Coppertwig ( talk) 21:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not completely sure of this, but I think Wikipedia articles are not supposed to have a section with a title like "Overview" or "Introduction". Instead, they're supposed to have a lead section of up to 4 paragraphs at the beginning which has no section heading, (that is, it's the part before the first section title,) then some sections with titles and (I think) those titles are supposed to be about meaningful subtopics such as "History" etc., not general such as "Overview". (See WP:LEAD.) Currently the article has a lead section of one paragraph, and an overview of 4 paragraphs. I suggest that the heading "Overview" be deleted to combine the lead section with the overview, and that the combined section be shorted to four paragraphs, perhaps a little shorter than the paragraphs are now. Some of the information about 1994, for example, sounds a lot like what is presented later in the article; it could be shortened more in the lead in order to reduce repetition. (Shortened but not completely removed. "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article.") I hope this suggestion is helpful. -- Coppertwig ( talk) 17:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Water supply and sanitation in Colombia/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
A very good amount of information on a very specific subject. Good amount of on-page resources which could be used to expand and clarify. |
Last edited at 15:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 10:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() | Water supply and sanitation in Colombia was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've signed up to review this, but have been delayed for various reasons, will start next week, and count hold time from then. I note that there are many unreferenced statements, and the article needs careful copyediting as per manual of style - as an obvious example, some headings are capitalised other than on first word. Jimfbleak ( talk) 06:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The issues raised above have now been fixed and the articles has been renominated. Looking forward to comments.-- Mschiffler ( talk) 02:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I will place the nomination on hold. In my opinion this article is close to GA status. I think with a little work it can pass. Here are my comments based from the Good article criteria
These are not required in the GA criteria, but are friendly suggestions:
Davemeistermoab ( talk) 05:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
These are very useful comments. I just have two points of clarification: First, the lead section is so short, because when the same article was reviewed to become a good article on the Spanish Wikipedia we were told the lead section was too long, so we moved most of its content to the overview section below the lead section. What you'd like to see in the lead section (a summary of the sector history) is included in that overview section. Second, external cooperation and external links are actually quite different subjects. I have expanded the external cooperation section somewhat to make that clear. Ideally the external cooperation section should have more explanatory text, thus making it clearer that it is not just a collection of links, as it was in the initial version.-- Mschiffler ( talk) 15:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
With the recent changes, most of the items mentioned have been resolved. One that remains is the separate sources and references sections. Davemeistermoab ( talk) 02:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of March 2, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:
The article is quite long. If any further expansions are attempted, I would be careful to compress existing sections that may no longer be relevant. There is a large backlog of GA nominated articles. I encourage you to help in the review of an article. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Davemeistermoab ( talk) 16:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I've read part of the article so far and it generally looks good. Well done. In the Access section, I find this sentence confusing: "Data for water[17] and sanitation[18] based on "Reproductive and Sexual Health in Colombia".[19]" What data is it referring to -- the table above it? But then why does the table also have footnotes? And if the data are based on footnote 19, then what are footnotes 17 and 18 for? I suggest putting the name of the study "Reproductive and Sexual Health in Colombia" inside a footnote only, unless there's some reason to mention it and then use it in a full sentence, which that isn't.
I find that this sounds too repetitive, having already appeared in the lead section: "...access to water increased only slightly from 92% to 93%..." If it could be put into different words, maybe expanded with a little more information or using a different word from "slightly", then I think it would sound better. For example, maybe "In 2004, access to water was only 1% higher than in 1990 (93% versus 92%)."
Good work. Thanks for doing these articles. -- Coppertwig ( talk) 21:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not completely sure of this, but I think Wikipedia articles are not supposed to have a section with a title like "Overview" or "Introduction". Instead, they're supposed to have a lead section of up to 4 paragraphs at the beginning which has no section heading, (that is, it's the part before the first section title,) then some sections with titles and (I think) those titles are supposed to be about meaningful subtopics such as "History" etc., not general such as "Overview". (See WP:LEAD.) Currently the article has a lead section of one paragraph, and an overview of 4 paragraphs. I suggest that the heading "Overview" be deleted to combine the lead section with the overview, and that the combined section be shorted to four paragraphs, perhaps a little shorter than the paragraphs are now. Some of the information about 1994, for example, sounds a lot like what is presented later in the article; it could be shortened more in the lead in order to reduce repetition. (Shortened but not completely removed. "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article.") I hope this suggestion is helpful. -- Coppertwig ( talk) 17:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Water supply and sanitation in Colombia/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
A very good amount of information on a very specific subject. Good amount of on-page resources which could be used to expand and clarify. |
Last edited at 15:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 10:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)