Talk:Water supply and sanitation in the United States/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Will be reviewing the article over the next week or two. Other comments appreciated. Preliminary comments: 1. Need to standardize form of sources in References section per WP:MOS and make it easy for the reader: Citations for world wide web articles for reliable sources typically include:

• the name of the author or authors, spelled out, even if an organization,
• the title of the article in quotes,
• the name of the website (linked to a Wikipedia article about the site if it exists, or to Website's "about page"),
• date of publication,
• page number(s) (if applicable),
• the date you retrieved it (invisible to the reader if the article has a date of publication), format: "Accessed on 1-23-09."

Also standardize format of link.

2. Give separate references to sources now in single inline citations (e.g., # 5, 35, 48, 52, 57, etc.). Ok to have more than one inline cite for a single fact or sentence.

3. Complete publication information for each source, spelling out acronyms and completing punctuation. Every reference should end in a period.

4. Spell out journal titles.

5. Data box: Shares of things should be given in %, not "high."

6. Give inline cites for all % and figures given in text.

7. See WP:Lead and focus the lead on giving a summary overview of information in rest of article, minimizing inline cites in lead, saving them for later discussion/presentation of information. For leads, shorter and more general is usually better. A good lead paragraph mentions keywords in all major sections of the article.

8. May be too many external links in last section, but I don't see one for American Water Resources Association. Please remove anything there not directly relevant to what you discuss in the article.

Will provide more detailed comments after I give it a good read. This is a very good start on an important article. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 02:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your preliminary comments and looking forward to your more detailed comments. Items 2,3 and 4 that you mentioned have already been fixed. On 5, I wish someone had the exact %, but it is apparently not known exactly. Will work on 6 and 7. 8 should probably go in a future article on water resources management in the US. Concerning 1, making all references look nice this way would take up a lot of time and I am not sure if it is essential for a GA.--Mschiffler (talk) 03:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I did the first few for you; its not difficult. Also, sources in the English language version of Wikipedia need to be in English to be useful. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for doing the first references! I admire the patience you have to do this. I have to admit that I would like to focus the limited time I have on the substance. I also wonder which characteristics of references are essential for a good article, and which ones are desirable but not essential. Adding the year of the publication seems essential to me. Separating the hyperlink from the text so that it shows up as a number only may not be so essential. I would be interested in your views on this. On the language issue, I agree that if references are available in English they should be quoted in English, but if they are only available in other languages I would rather keep them in these languages instead of taking the information out completely. Would you agree with me on that?--Mschiffler (talk) 01:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

In both instances the objective is to make the material accessible and useful to the intended reader. Separating the link from the text as shown in the first few references is the recommended form in Wikipedia, requires only careful placement of brackets and text, and some articles have failed GA Review for not conforming to it. In the language case, has any English language publication quoted the French figures? If yes, you can cite them. Most readers in this version of Wikipedia have English as their principal, often only language. Let's help the reader.

On a different issue, the toilet image in one section disrupts the table/list next to it. Can you edit the list so it appears a bit later and is not disrupted? Alternatively, the toilet might be placed at the end of the section? More soon. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to look so carefully at the style of references. However, even a number of featured articles do not use this style for references, and even allow quite some diversity in styles within one and the same article. For an example, please look at Economy of India. The objective is indeed to make the material accessible and useful to the intended reader. Various styles fulfill this purpose. On the language, there is no source in English with this information that I know of. It is often essential to draw on references in other languages to make this information accessible to those who speak only English. For an example, please look at Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_Colombia. Without the Spanish references, for which there is no Enlish translation, the article would be just a fraction of what it is now. Concerning the image, I will see how it can be fixed. And I am looking forward to comments on substance, if any, from you and others.--Mschiffler (talk) 02:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not here to argue. If you want a favorable review, you need to comply with instructions guidance placed here, in a timely manner. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Good article vs. featured article

This is just a reminder of what constitutes a good article v. a featured article. This article has been nominated for a good article, not a featured article. The differences are described here:Wikipedia:Compare Criteria Good v. Featured. The previous reviewer requested changes that are typically expected for a featured article, but not of a good article, such as consistently formatted inline citations. Hope that this clarification is useful.--Mschiffler (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Not particularly useful, but certainly condescending and a bit combative. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 17:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

More detailed review

This article would benefit greatly from being split into two separate articles, one on water supply and the other on wastewater treatment. In this article, the two different topics are commingled in a somewhat disorganized manner that is confusing to the reader. Needs better organization and focus that would probably come from splitting the two topics.

Currently appears to be a disorganized assembly of more or less related facts gleaned from several sources, which are not linked together with a narrative that explains their significance.

The two topics "water supply" and "sanitation" (sewerage and wastewater treatment) are closely related, since in many cities the same utilities provide both services, and both services are regulated by the same entities. However, a better narrative to explain the significance would be useful. Please highlight which specific aspects do not seem to be significant to you. In addition, if you should have any suggestions on how to improve the structure of the article to improve the narrative that would be appreciated.--Mschiffler (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Traditional organizational structures do not make this easy for the reader to understand, and are not conceptually ideal, because the processes used and standards applied to water treatment for supply and wastewater treatment are so different. Mixing them together merely confuses the reader. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 19:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This article failed a GA review earlier this year, and it appears it was nominated again without addressing many of the substantive comments provided during the earlier review. Comments provided during the earlier review must be addressed before it will be reviewed favorably.

Technologies and standards are indeed very different between water supply and sanitation. However, in terms of institutions for both service provision and regulation, and also in terms of tariffs and financing, both are intricately linked to each other, with the exception of on-site sanitation. This article does not focus on technologies. These are covered in other articles, and are similar across national borders. Instead the article focuses on institutional, financial and environmental aspects which are specific to the United States. And concerning these aspects, water supply and sanitation have more in common than what distinguishes them from each other.--Mschiffler (talk) 02:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Please take another look at the earlier comments and the subsequent discussion at Talk:Water supply and sanitation in the United States/GA1. All substantive comments have been addressed before it was resubmitted, in particular concerning rewriting entirely the sections on finance and professional associations. The reason for the earlier failure, as mentioned o the talk page, was that the article had not been revised quickly enough at that time.--Mschiffler (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I have examined in detail the earlier comments from the previous GA1 review and have compared them to the current text. I see little evidence of an effort to address those earlier comments in many areas, including the following:

• There's no History section; this is a major omission. Suggested source:

Melosi MV (2000). The Sanitary City: Urban Infrastructure in America from Colonial Times to the Present. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0801861527.

Agree, but requires major work if it this section is to be comprehensive. May be more appropriate if this article should be taken all the way to become a featured article. If someone else has read the book, which received very good reviews and seems to be very complete based on looking at its table of contents, and summarizes it succinctly in a few paragraphs, that would of course be more than welcome.--Mschiffler (talk) 02:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• There's almost no mention of:

• water conservation: significant because many communities limit the size of lawns and amount they can be watered in the southern states, especially southwest (Denver, Phoenix, etc.), due to water shortages as population grows, and this appears to be a national trend. Has made xeriscaping mandatory in some areas, using local land use controls.

Agree and should be feasible to add.--Mschiffler (talk) 02:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• reclaimed water: should mention it is controversial where proposed for drinking water supplies, even if technically safe.

Agree and should be feasible, complementing the existing generic article on that topic.--Mschiffler (talk) 02:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• desalination: major issue in Arizona and southern California, not to mention Hawaii.

Agree and should be feasible to add.--Mschiffler (talk) 02:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• sustainability in general
• Clean Water Act: don't see how an article that discusses wastewater treatment can be complete without discussion of treatment standards and stream segment discharge standards under CWA.

Agree. Could be added, but may require more time beyond March.--Mschiffler (talk) 02:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

A brief statement similar to the one about the Safe Drinking Water Act might suffice. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 04:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• contaminants in groundwater, water supply, and sewers: a major issue, especially in systems that do not chlorinate their water, is how to keep the supply lines from treatment plant to user free of biological contamination. Also critical for those using new ozone treatment systems.
• waterborne disease outbreaks: What are the controls used to prevent them, expecially those resistant to chlorine?
• relationship between sewers and stormwater drainage: cost of replacing (and not replacing) CSOs: a major issue now confronting many US cities.
• fluoridation (a major controversy in the U.S.)
• vulnerabilities of U.S. water infrastructure to natural disasters: New Orleans and Katrina afford some recent examples.

• There's no mention of:

• interstate water compacts, which allocate water among most of the Western states.
• tribal water, which greatly complicates water supply ownership in the Western US.
• agricultural pollution with nitrates and pesticides
• full cost pricing (despite that long section on finances!)
• source water protection: esp. control of motorboats and land use controls around major lakes and reservoirs providing water supply.
• vulnerabilities of U.S. water infrastructure to sabotage: How secure are the pre-treatment reservoirs and supply lines leaving drinking water treatment facilities?

Merely mentioning a key word once or twice without defining it or explaining its significance is not sufficient.

Moreover, I'm American and I agree the flag must go. It serves no purpose here.

Furthermore, the image of the concrete pipe is not even from the U.S. and pipes are not buried so shallowly here, due to freezing ground, so it should be replaced. We are more likely to dig up a pipe made of an old tree trunk at some depth than a pipe like that one.

Thanks for moving the toilet--it looks better now. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

In addition, there are multiple problems that prevent this article from receiving a favorable review from the current reviewer, in addition to those already identified in the preliminary review above, unless they are fixed:

1. Sentences that begin with numbers must spell them out (11 = Eleven).

2. All factual statements require a reference, whether percentages, dollars or otherwise.

3. Where % or raw number is given, it must be dated (e.g., give year). This is especially important where the number refers to population, which is always changing. Example: Last paragraph of lead at $474: in what year? WIN study was published in 2000; what year was data?

I have now added the years for both data. I actually have my doubts about the accuracy of the figures from the WIN data and am considering to take it out. Will try to get the years for other data as well.--Mschiffler (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

If you have doubts about the accuracy of the figures, better to leave them out and/or find another source. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

4. “Access to improved water is universal.” Really? In rural areas of the U.S. that rely upon well water? In my home, if it is improved it is because I improved it with a water softener and arsenic filtration unit. Need to restate this.

Please check the defintion of improved water source by the World Health Organization. This definition does not take into account water quality, so a water source is considered an improved source even if the water is hard or is contaminated. One could argue whether this definition is appropriate or not (and people do argue about it), but that is the commonly used definition. What could be done is to explain it better.--Mschiffler (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Few people who will read this article are familiar with the WHO definition. It is up to the editor to explain this in a manner persons with no expertise in the field can understand, using the ordinary meaning of plain language. If you can't restate it, omit it? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

5. Some sentences do not have is/was agreement. Present or past tense should be uniform in single sentences.

6. Subsection on Cities supplied by surface water without treatment: A list is provided, but explanations of items on list begin with why one water source is clean (which is the point of the subsection) and end by saying on is “the largest.” All should explain why they do not require treatment. Better yet, you might shorten the section by stopping it after note [4] and summarizing the rest in a single sentence. Not interesting or notable as is.

7. Explain how Lake Mead is affected by drought in a way relevant to this article. Is it too saline? Rest of this paragraph is merely a description of where various water comes from, with no indication of why that is significant to the article. If you cannot say why this is significant, leave it out. As is, it merely looks like a vehicle for adding a lot of Wikilinks. Not notable.

It is certainly not a vehicle to add Wikilinks, which would be pointless. Why would someone want to do that? Many people in the U.S. do not know where their drinking water comes from. Wouldn't it be significant for them to know about it from an article on this topic?--Mschiffler (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not assuming anything. I'm talking about what it looks like: appearance. Merely listing a number of conveyances is not interesting, but a waste of space. Discussion of why they are significant might be interesting. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

8. Information on water from glaciers in Rocky Mountains is dated. There are not many glaciers left in the U.S. Rockies. If you are aware of any that are significant water supplies, name them as examples.

There is a bit of a problem with the source here. The National Academies state on their website that "many communities depend on seasonal water runoff from glaciers" without specifying if the statement refers to the U.S. or to the world. My interpretation that it refers to localities outside the U.S., such as in the Andes, but it is not clear. Because of this uncertainty I left the statement out of the article initially, but an earlier reviewer requested that I include the full quote: Talk:Water supply and sanitation in the United States/GA1. There are still a number of glaciers in the Rocky Mountains in the U.S., but I believe their role as a source of drinking water supply is minor, if any (as opposed to snwopack, which does play a more important role in buffering variations in water supply for communities). Any suggestions how to deal with the issue in this article would be welcome. My inclination is to take that part of the quote out and revert the quote to how it was before the comments were made during the first round of review for good article status.--Mschiffler (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is limited to the U.S., and information in it should be limited to the U.S. If the quote is about someplace else, it should be omitted or qualified with a statment to the effect part of it probably does not apply to the U.S. There are not many glaciers left in the U.S. Rockies, period, and the few that remain probably do not provide any significant amount of water supply. If you have a reliable source that says differently, by all means use it. Try and avoid using sources and statements that mislead the reader. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

On what basis do you claim that there are not many glaciers left in the U.S.? See List of glaciers in the United States. To what extent they serve as a source of drinking water supply I simply don't know. It is quite obvious that one should not use sources and statements that mislead the reader. But one should also not claim as facts things that are not facts. From the context of the web page by the National Academies, it seems that the quote is about the U.S., so I keep the quote in as it is right now unless you have a reliable source that says differently.--Mschiffler (talk) 05:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Most of the "glaciers" listed on the list you provide are not really galciers at all, but "snowfields," as is noted in the material on each one, and some of them aren't there anymore. For example, Saint Mary's Glacier (Colorado) is gone. There used to be a roadside overlook there, but there was nothing left to see, so they removed the overlook. At any rate, the ones that remain (esp. those in Alaska where there is no significant human population) don't provide much water for U.S. use. Not useful information. And quibbling about this is not useful. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 09:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You like to use the term "quibbling". Not sure if the use of this term is conducive to a constructive dialog on substance. I always was of the opinion that glaciers in the U.S. are not linked to drinking water supply. As mentioned before, the reason the sentence is in there is that the previous reviewer requested it to be included, because he felt that the quote from the National Academies had been distorted by excluding the fourth bullet point on glaciers. Any constructive suggestion on how to deal with this? I am happy to take it out again, but perhaps adding an explanation for why it is out in the endnote.--Mschiffler (talk) 02:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

"Quibbling" refers to your apparent, and repeated, reluctance to make suggested changes that would improve the article. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

9. Information in list of factors on impact of climate change was copied almost verbatim from reference [5], which is cited but the material is not all in quotation marks. This is plagiarism of information about Drinking Water Basics published by the National Academies. It is not made less so because a few words or a sentence is left out. Rewrite it or cite it properly or leave it out. It is unclear to what extent this may also be the case with other portions of the article, and warrants further review.

Agree, should be in a box to show as a quote. Just need to find out how to do it technically. There was certainly no intention of plagiarism, since the source was always pretty clear.--Mschiffler (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

If it's not in quotation marks, it looks like the writer claims it as his/her own where definitions of plagiarism are concerned. In how many other places is something similar done in this article? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

10. Material about American Water and United Water appears twice and there is no rationale given for discussing them without discussing others suppliers. Relevance? The fact that they are water suppliers is not enough for them to warrant special discussion here.

There looks to be a lot of work to do here before this article can be considered a “good article” by any reasonable, unbiased reviewer. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed review. I hope that you will respond to my points, including the points earlier. I hope that we agree that Wikipedia is not about "complying with instructions" by one user, but about a candid and cordial exchange of arguments on substance.--Mschiffler (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

If you don't like "instructions," read "guidance" instead, as corrected above.

Peer reviews are not debating societies. I've been doing peer reviews for thirty years, and have some idea of what is involved. So far, I'm not seeing a lot of willingness in your comments to do the work that needs to get done to make this a good article. Less quibbling and more editing would be better. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I did not say that no more editing is needed, or did I? Before going into substantial editing, isn't it necessary to gain consensus on the issues at stake so that it is clear how the editing should be done? Characterizing a reaction to a comment as "quibbling", as you have done, is not constructive. Answering on the substance, as you have done selectively, is more constructive. Traditional anonymous peer reviews in scientific journals, with which you appear to be familiar, are one-way streets. Wikipedia reviews are two-way streets with occasional debates, whether you like it or not. The first review of this article is an example of how such two-way communication can work well. The part of the first review that you pasted in this review does not give a full picture of what is on the talk page. It only includes the first reaction by the reviewer, without taking into account the further evolution of the - yes - debate. The first reviewer also seemed to have a good understanding of the difference between a good article and a featured article, as exemplified by his willingness to leave the history section which I think would be required for a featured article out of a good article. Last but not least on your claim of plagiarism: It appears that you use this word quickly. There is no plagiarism in this article. Why don't you assume good faith? While the tone of your review appears occasionally aggressive, I assume that your comments are made in good faith and will continue to incorporate your comments in the article.--Mschiffler (talk) 05:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I do assume good faith and I am also a thorough empiricist, which means I believe what I see placed in front of me. It is what I see in the article that stimulates my review comments, nothing else. I read ALL of the previous GA1 review, but don't think it useful to go over it all again here. I do hope the obvious defects in this article can be cured. Quibbling about them will not do it. Editing may. We'll see. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 09:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Added some explanation and suggestions at various places above, especially to the list from GA1. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that most of these explanations and suggestions on substance now are constructive and useful. Working them in the article will take time though. Please see reactions to some suggestions.--Mschiffler (talk) 02:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Added some more to existing comments. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional review

I will write a review on the article in the next days. --Kerres (Talk) 20:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

All right, looking forward to reading it. The flow of thought in this article could be improved, while also better highlighting what are key issues in the sector. I am considering a substantial reordering of the article to achieve this objective. However, this requires more time than I initially expected to spend on this article. Since there is no rush, I would appreciate if the article could remain on hold until the end of March, by which time I should be able to rearrange the article.--Mschiffler (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Review

• Well written:
  • In my opinion, the prose is very clear and the grammar is correct. I corrected some minor errors. However, I am not a native speaker and thus not the best person to judge this.
  • Manual of style
    • Lead section: The section clearly summarizes all important issues of the article. It seems to be almost too long for a lead section, but on the other hand I cannot find any sentence which should be deleted.
    • Layout: The article complies with the MOS layout guidelines. It would be good to indicate the quotes in a better way using MOS: Quotations, even if it is not required for good articles.

I changed the quotes. However, since the quotes are relatively short it was less change than I had thought. According to MOS:Quotations, I left them as part of the text without special formatting. --Kerres (Talk) 10:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • Jargon: The only term which could be explained in more detail is "disinfection by product". I understand what it means theoretically, but an example would be nice.

Found a Wikipedia article on disinfection by-products and established a link.--Kerres (Talk) 15:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • Words to avoid: I do not see any word which should not be there.
    • Fiction: There is no fiction.
    • List incorporation: There is one list in the article. It makes sense to display the information in a list.
• Factually accurate and verifiable:
  • The list of references is very complete and detailed. Where necessary, the references are provided with a remark.
  • Challenged information like the glacier issue is provided with a reference.
  • There is no original research in the article. All findings stem from the indicated references.
• Broad in its coverage:
  • After thinking about the main issues which I expect from an article called water supply and sanitation in the United States (water quality, water and wastewater infrastructure, service providers and other institutions, treatment, water sources etc.), they are all covered. A brief overview of the sector history as suggested earlier would however be interesting.
  • The main issues are listed without too much detail.
• Neutral: I cannot see any POV motivated writing. The mentioning of the names of the biggest private water companies seems logic and important to me, since they are part of the sector structure.
• Stable: A view in the article's history does not show any edit war or controversial issue. The vast majority of the edits is made by one single user.
• Illustrated: Some relevant pictures illustrate the article.

Overall, the article already complies with the good article criteria. There are some parts which could be approved though, but this will not take long. As the main contributor to the article mentioned, we should take into consideration the difference between good article criteria and featured article criteria. --Kerres (Talk) 08:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Kerres, because you have collaborated with Mschiffler on other articles on the same subject, and because you were recruited by Mschiffler to provide a second review of this article, aren't you a little concerned your review will be perceived as a bit of a conflict of interest? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)utZZ

Without giving attention to your unfounded accusations, I assure that I honestly compared the article to the GA criteria and came to a conclusion, nothing else.--Kerres (Talk) 08:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:Citing

The following guidelines apply to ALL Wikipedia articles, not just those in Good Article or Featured Article review. Don't take my word for it, go to the source, which is where I got the list at the beginning of this review that you seem so reluctant to use:

A citation is a line of text that uniquely identifies a source. For example:

Ritter, R. (2002). The Oxford Style Manual. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-860564-1.

It allows a reader to find the source and verify that it supports material in Wikipedia.

When to use. As described in the When to cite sources section of this guideline, sources should be cited when adding material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, when quoting someone, when adding material to the biography of a living person, when checking content added by others, and when uploading an image

How to format. While you should attempt to format a citation as described in the How to format citations section of this guideline, it is even more important that material in Wikipedia is verifiable. Add your source even if you are unsure of how to properly format the citation—provide enough information to identify the source, and others will improve the formatting.

How to present. Citations are usually presented within articles using one of the methods described in the How to present citations section of this guideline. Each article should use the same method throughout—if an article already has some citations, an editor should adopt the method already in use or seek consensus before changing it.

If you don't wish an article to look like it was written by children, you need to conform the references to the guidelines for citing reliable sources so they are seen a potentially verifiable. Please do so, even if it takes a little work. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

In an effort to assist you, I've made numerous small edits and tagged several areas that still need citations (yes, I know you're working on them) and a couple with questionable sources. The following areas need attention:

• Water sources, first paragraph needs year for data.
• Why is the Bull Run Watershed so clean?
• Subheads need to be punctuated consistently with a period following.
• Subsection on "Billing inaccuracy" is not notable because no evidence its widespread, so should be deleted.
• I agree the source in "Service provision" section is questionable. Should find a more reliable source of info. In some states, such as Maine, I believe about 50% of the population is on well water, which is probably also true in many other rural states. Incidentally, about 50% of those wells provide water with arsenic levels that exceed health standards. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Another perspective

I have just dropped in on this review, and I thought i would add a perspective in general terms, and as someone with an academic training in environmental policy and politics, but not an expert in this particular field.

• I would rate this article as very close to passing GA
• The lead should summarise the main points of the whole article, but does not seem to mention the key "responses to address issues". This might best be addressed by a couple of additional sentences at the end of lead para #2.
• While the article does not need to be comprehensive (which is an FA criterion), it should address the main aspects of the topic. I am undecided whether the absence of any "history" section crosses a line on this or not, but it is the most obvious omission to my eye. I note Kerres (who knows more in this field than I do) does not think it is a barrier. I accept Mervyn Emrys' view that it is desirable.
• The citations look good enough for GA to me. I am not sure if I've missed something in the long debate about this, but there seem to me to be two core principles to be working to: (1) "Full citations must contain enough information for other editors to identify the specific published work you used." and (2) "Any of these styles is acceptable on Wikipedia so long as articles are internally consistent." (both quotes from WP:Citing). Mervyn Emrys, i think we may have been involved in discussions around the Norman Wengert article where you had queried another editor's review of your GA nom on this matter, and I think you rightly noted that the citations policy is not one highlighted for GA eligibility. While citation of sources is a general WP policy, I am not sure that setting the bar high on this point was the right thing at Wengert, nor should it be here. While there are some minor issues in the cites, I don't think they would hold things up. "The Good article (GA) process is intentionally lightweight" (Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles).
• Of slightly more concern is the fact that there are statistics cited in the article that do not have a citation attached to them. I am putting in a few tags to draw attention to some of these.

• Note that in some cases, I suspect the facts i am indicating need citation are actually from a reference cited in later in the same paragraph. My own views are (1) cite the ref with the first sentence that uses the source, not the last; but more generally (2) in an article with so many different citations for so many different facts, it is best to just keep using in-line cites, even if it means three refs in three consecutive sentences to the same citation. This also "future-proofs" the article: if a future editor restructures the current version, splitting up info that is currently close together, the citation information will travel with the split up sections.

Were I the primary reviewer, I would probably pass this at GA, subject to the above points (apart from including a history section) being addressed. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)