Talk:Sanitation in ancient Rome

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Sanitation in ancient Rome was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. 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.
January 13, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
WikiProject Environment (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

What's wrong with this stub?

I'm guessing someone tagged it because it's a tad short...the cleanup tag doesn't mean it's a bad article, but that there's more information on the subject that should be added. Someone will delete it once the article begins to take shape.

PS On comment pages like this, if you type four tildes ~ then it will leave your name and the time you left your comment, ie:

Czolgolz 12:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

2006 0814HistriaMuseum20060332.jpg

Maybe this can be used in the articleCristianChirita

more links?[edit]

there isn't a single link in the text linking to another article. 20:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination[edit]

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of January 13, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Symbol unsupport vote.svg Mostly Manual of Style compliant and readable, but the article does need breaking down in to smaller, more digestible paragraphs. The article also seriously suffers from a lack of necessary linking. Links should be made for place names, pronouns, and other historically relevant topics. {{Seealso}} and/or {{Mainarticle}} links, such as for sewage and trash, need to be added.
2. Factually accurate?: Symbol unsupport vote.svg In terms of meeting the GA requirements for verifiability, this article is extremely poor. Simply having sources laid out in a References section is not enough. In-line citations must be made to those sources, either in footnote or Harvard referencing format. According to the GA criteria, GA-class work "at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged.." Currently there is only one inline citation present in the article. This is unacceptable.
3. Broad in coverage?: Symbol unsupport vote.svg Trash and sewage were not the only basic issues of sanitation in Roman (or any) civilization. Food sanitation, the potability of water, and environmental sanitation are all aspects requiring consideration in their own sections. In ignoring these altogether, this article clearly fails the broadness criterion of GA.
4. Neutral point of view?: Symbol support vote.svg Fair treatment for all significant points of view.
5. Article stability? Symbol support vote.svg Not the subject of currents events or edit warring.
6. Images?: Symbol support vote.svg Images present have the proper licensing.

Closing comments: I have chosen not to provide a hold period for this nomination. This is because according to the guidelines of GA reviewing, holds are only for minor improvements to what is already basically a GA-class article. As this article's referencing needs a major overhaul and some basic subjects are not covered, I do not think it meets that definition.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— VanTucky 02:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)