Talk:Water supply and sanitation in Colombia

message: 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)
replies: text: Thank you for your collaboration! If you have any questions or need help, feel free to contact me or post it on the discussion page.--Kerres (talk) 09:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: review

message: 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)
replies: text: done --Kerres (Talk) 15:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renomination 

message: These are not required in the GA criteria, but are friendly suggestions:
*Suggest renaming some of the headings. In my opinion headings should have short names:
**History and recent developments -> History
**Centralization under INSFOPAL -> Centralization
**Strong public utilities in the largest cities ->Urban areas
**Successful private sector participation -> Private sector
**Successful examples of community-based service provision in peri-urban areas -> Peri-urban areas
**The situation in rural areas -> Rural areas
*Access: The caption for this chart doesn't look right to me. However, I have never used a chart in any article I've worked on. So I don't know if this is how captions to charts are typically done.
Davemeistermoab (talk) 05:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Other suggestions

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reaction to comments 

message: 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)
replies: text: done --Kerres (Talk) 15:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: 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:
:1. Well written?: You have done a good job of translating spanish material
:2. Factually accurate?: Article is well sourced using authoritative sources.
:3. Broad in coverage?: Very
:4. Neutral point of view?: Yes
:5. Article stability? No edit wars, some expansion occurred during the GA review
:6. Images?: All tagged with GPL, CC, or PD license
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.</div>— Davemeistermoab (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Successful [[Wikipedia:Good articles|good article]] nomination

message: 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)
replies: text: Good point. Will look into it. By the way, do you think we should try to nominate the article as a featured article candidate?--Mschiffler (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I don't have enough experience with the featured article process to provide an opinion on whether to nominate it. (However, why not be bold?) --Coppertwig (talk) 01:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section and overview 

message: *"Drinking water use has decreased by 25% between 1996 and 2001.  Tariff increases and the inclusion of low income users who did not have access to piped water before influenced this trend." Does this mean people are actually drinking less water?  I don't think so:  I think it means they're using less water for things other than drinking.  I'm not sure.  Perhaps it would be clearer if it said "Drinking-quality water use...".  If part of the decrease is because low income users are being counted who were not counted before, then "has decreased" isn't really accurate.  It would be more accurate to say that per-capita use by people with piped water has decreased.  I would think that supplying piped water to the low-income people would lead to a real increase, even if the per-capita use by those with piped water decreased.  I would also think there would be an overall increase in the amount of piped water used, since more people are using piped water. 
*"Departamento Nacional de Planificación (DNP) or National Planning Department." Again, I would suggest using just one name (either the Spanish or the English) in the main sentence, and putting the other in parentheses.  Just to clarify what I was saying before: it's OK to use the Spanish first for some and the English first for others, I think, if there's a good reason to do so, but within the same sentence or paragraph (or section of the article) it may be easier for the reader if all organizations have the same language first.  Maybe English first is better because this is English Wikipedia, or maybe Spanish first is better because that's the real name of the organization, especially if we don't have examples of the English name being used in English-language publications.  Sorry to get so complicated.  Basically, I'm just suggesting to take out the word "or" and put one name in parentheses. 
*"Colombian municipalities are responsible for “securing that their inhabitants are given domestic services of water supply and sanitation in an efficient way by public companies”."  If the original is Spanish, then the original Spanish needs to be provided too, I think (maybe in parentheses or in a footnote).  If this is a translation by a Wikipedian, I suggest changing "securing" to "ensuring".  (If it's an original quote in English, don't change it.)
*"Over the last years, the number of companies had increased and the direct service provision by municipalities had decreased. "  I suggest inserting "few" before "years". I suggest changing "had" to "has" in both cases, unless there is some reason for using that verb tense.  If there is some reason, then probably some more words are needed to set the context of when this is all happening. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  More comments 

message: Substituted at 10:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment