Talk:Phnom Penh Water Supply Authority

Suggested change in title and structure

I am planning to substantially rewrite this article for the following reasons:

• The title does not fit the content. Integrated Urban Water Management is about a holistic view of the water cycle in a city, including issues such as stormwater management, sanitation and water reuse. There is very little information on water resources in the article, such as the relative share of groundwater and surface water in supplying the city, the quality of groundwater and surface water and what share of available resources is abstracted. I therefore suggest to change the title to "Water supply in Phnom Penh" and to remove references to Integrated Urban Water Management from the article. As an alternative, the missing information could be added, which would require substantial additional work. Also, what establishes the notability of Phnom Penh in the international water scene is the success in improving access to and service quality of water supply, while little information is in the public domain about IUWM in Phnom Penh.
• The section with the incomplete title "economic and social" would be removed, since it duplicates information that is available in other Wikipedia articles.
• The structure of the section "Responses to challenges" would be changed in order to focus on actual responses as opposed to using an abstract framework such as the IUWM framework of UNEP.
• The section on "conclusions" is appropriate for a seminar paper, but not for an encyclopedic article and would thus be removed.
• Parts of the text are overly positive and will be revised in order to ahdere to a Neutral point of view.

I plan to implement these changes and add some other relevant information over the next few weeks. Feel free to discuss the planned changes here before I move ahead.--Mschiffler (talk) 13:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

POV problems

This article looks to be little more than a promo for the Asian Development Bank restructuinrg of the Phnom Penh water system, mostly lifted from here: [1].--Goldsztajn (talk) 05:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The article is based on various sources, as one can see by looking at the references. The turnaround of the utility was supported by numerous donors, of which the Asian Development Bank (ADB) ins only one, which is clearly stated in the article. The turnaround story for the utility has been critically reviewed by independent scholars such as Asit Biswas, who is quoted in the article, and the success has been confirmed by awards such as the Ramon Magsaysay Award and the Stockholm Industry Water Award. None of that has to do with the ADB. If you still consider that the article is "little more than a promo for the Asian Development Bank", please provide more substance to your claim to justify the POV tag and make specific recommendations for additions, deletions or rewording in the article.--Mschiffler (talk) 06:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

There has been no response from Goldsztajn about this issue for the last two days. I am going to wait for another two days. If no one further comments on the issue, I would remove the POV tag, although I would prefer a response so that any wording that could be interpreted as being biased can be modified.--Mschiffler (talk) 11:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)