Talk:Water pollution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Old talk
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Maps[edit]

Agreed,also very nice removed to here. If they are to be used, should be in context and reduced in size or thumbed.
image:mercuryk.gif
Mercury in zooplankton (copepods) in the open ocean off New York and Atlantic City USA New Jersey
image:oxygenk.gif
Oxygen depletion as a consequence of too much nutrient input
Vsmith 17:02, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The maps are given here:

--Shreshth91 30 June:09 (UTC)

The entry was as follows: "The Drinking Water Equivalent Level (DWEL) is the concentration (in mg/mL) of a chemical contaminant in water that is deemed safe (in other words, the risk of poisoning is 10−6)." I am deleting this from the basic Water Pollution article rather than trying to clarify and correct the entry. Perhaps someone can do an aricle on Health-based contaminant limits and an entry on DWEL specifically that can be linked to.
WCFrancis 20:27, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification on this. I have seen it as both mg/mL and mg/L. WaterGuy

Graphs[edit]

Can anybody please give me some sources where I can get some graphs relating to rise of water pollution?
Shreshth91 18:43, 29 Jun 2005 (IST)

Google is always a good start :S
Otherwise try Health Canada page on water, USEPA page on water, European Commission page on water, European Environment Agency page on water resources, World Health Organization page on water, UN water page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjamjak (talkcontribs) 12:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

need human health impacts section[edit]

i will try to get to this in next month....its very important....im exhausted now from all the copy edit and new material this article needed two days ago :) Anlace 04:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC) this not useful

Human health impacts of water pollution are extremely varied depending on what kind of water we are talking about i.e. the risks and potential impacts associated with microbially contaminated drinking water are very different to those of chemically polluted sea water. In addition, many of the impacts are distinctly secondary: polluted riverwater may lead to increased concentrations of pollutants in riverine animals, which form part of a food chain for a certain population e.g. mercury in fish in the Amazon etc. I think that it could be difficult to harness the variety of such impacts under the Water pollution heading. I would suggest that to attempt to present anything other than an idea of the scope of potential health impacts may lead to a reductionist and oversimplified account of many issues, in which case a very brief statement should suffice, perhaps linking to pages on Contamination of drinking water and health, Persistent organic pollutants, Heavy metals etc. Jimjamjak (talk) 12:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
water pollution are mostly cause by factories. In order to stop this matter, in the future there will be an invention that could help the water clean. for those chemcials will not be dump in sea, water,etc. it will uses for fuel such as car, truck, air plan, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.203.159 (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
You probably mean that persistent water pollution is mostly caused by multiple industrial sources rather than just factories. For example, coal burning is the main source of mercury pollution which ends up as mercury in fish such as salmon and herring yet the mercury is not from a factory proper. PCB and dioxin contamination of water which then ends up in fish such as herring is from factories though.AnimeJanai (talk) 12:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I am aware that this isn't the main article space here but I think it worth clarifying that although chemicals such as PCBs and dioxins are all manufactured, their role as pollutants can come from releases far distant from any factory. For example dioxins can be released from poorly managed garden bonfires burning waste plastics. PCBs can be released from disposal of old cables, lipstick, paints etc. Thus such chemicals can be pervasive at very low levels in the air and can arise from domestic waste stream, recycling operations and many other non-point sources. I would incidentally also like to see an authoritative reference for Mercury in fish originating from burning coal. Mercury in fish flesh seems to arise as methylated mercury there would need to be a methylation process for elemental mercury and the quantities involved in that process would need to be linked to the quantities released from coal burning. It is easy to make conjectures when dealing with pollution, much more difficult to be demonstrably correct.  Velella  Velella Talk   13:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

also needs description of sensory impacts[edit]

needs nonhealth section on odor , color, taste impacts...i will get to this too :) Anlace 04:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I am keen to know what you mean by impacts here. I would assume that for something to be considered an impact, there must also be a target or affected entity. In the case of aesthetics of water, we are presumably referring to drinking water. Ultimately I would argue that poor aesthetic quality of drinking water is a property of drinking water. The impacts of this are economic (people shifting their water consumption habits away from supplied drinking water), political (pressure is subsequently put on providers or policy-makers to improve the quality of this water), environmental (if people begin to drink bottle water, for example, there are a number of external environmental costs), and health (since low aesthetic quality of water may reduce the amount of drinking water consumed).Jimjamjak (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S: dont change what it says here it is really important — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.151.197.42 (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Needs water pollution indicator section[edit]

Discussing the creature that live in different concentrations of pollutants, and how they indicate the level of pollution. Like mayfly lavae, fish, bloodworms, nothing etc.See [1] for examples. Also this [2] - Jack (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. "The Rise of Slime" (See La Times, Altered Oceans Series" issue needs to be discussed as well, but I think both of these are stubs, rather than main topic item, due to their complexity. Please feel free to start a stub and lend us some of your knowledge.FOK SD OA 06:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Regulatory framework[edit]

There is an open discussion on the Water Quality (WQ) page that touches on merging the topic with a page called safe water. Since WQ is the industry term for understanding water how clean the water is, I would cry foul if it were to be eliminated. I'm counter proposing that we make the safe water page into the discussion centered on water law or as you have termed it Regulatory Framework. Since the Safe water page is based upon the USEPA Safe Drinking Water Act it seems to be a natural transition. Since water law is large and expansive it needs to be its own sub topic, else it may eclipse any topic it is spawned in. Discussion?? FOK SD OA 17:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Sources of water pollution[edit]

It seems to me that the article focuses very strongly on contamination from anthropogenic sources/actions. I am not sure if this is owing to the predominantly US-legislative framework within which the page was conceived, or through geogenic contamination just not being recognised as a hugely important factor in water pollution. I added geogenic sources to the list of sources of water pollution. Jimjamjak 14:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to see that the types of pollution have a better categorization as well as an expansion of approximately three or more specific examples of pollutant per category. for example VOCs: toluene, benzene, oil, gasoline, etc.; Toxic substances: mercury, dioxins, etc., also what is the composition of industrial runoff or other runoff in general? anyways thanks for creating the page I have sited some of it for a project, regards Paul 10:12 pm, 11/9/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.198.42.247 (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Images[edit]

The third image on the page, showing what looks like eutrophication around an outflow pipe, is not very useful without a description of what it depicts. I think that unless the person responsible for the image (or someone who can verify what the image shows) writes a meaningful caption, the picture should be removed/replaced. Jimjamjak 14:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Unmentioned Information[edit]

In the "Sources of Water Pollution" category, you fail to mention that in general, littering is a large cause of water pollution. Thank you.207.69.140.24 11:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. In future feel free to make your own edits. And make yourself a user to make your edits and discussion threads clear to others. Jimjamjak 15:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Does anyone actually know how much of Earth's water is pollution? It would make a nice addition as a fact somewhere in this article if someone were to unearth the answer. 24.15.53.225 02:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what you were trying to ask for. I assume that you wanted to ask: "Does anyone actually know how much of the Earth's water is polluted?" In my opinion, there is no sensible way of approaching such a question. All water contains some amount of impurity. If levels of these impurities are measured and compared against statutory norms or guideline values, it is possible to classify that particular sample of water as 'polluted', but this kind of classification is completely relative. In addition, if the water is not in contact with humans (e.g. very deep sea water around geothermal vents could be extremely 'polluted' with metals), then the 'pollution' of the water is essentially irrelevant. In addition, the water on the Earth is continually cycling through different phases - it is not static. Any attempt to answer your question would be in the realm of fantasy. Jimjamjak 10:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Change name of page[edit]

I am beginning to wonder if it would make sense to rename this page as Surface water pollution and Drinking water pollution, maybe adding pages on Pollution of groundwater and Pollution of the marine environment etc. Any thoughts? Jimjamjak (talk) 12:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No one cares about water pollution 76.228.69.101
Time on your hands - get yourself a username 76.228.69.101 and maybe you'll find yourself even contributing to the discussion. Jimjamjak (talk) 11:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with separate pages for discrete topics within Water pollution. However, I do believe that the main page Water pollution should remain with significant content on all aspects. In many ways it is difficult to tease out the different strands however; drinking water pollution is intimately linked to surface water pollution and to ground water pollution. It is also the case that the causes are very much the same irrespective of the receiving environment and there is a risk of very significant duplication of text across several articles. My preference would be for no change, but if change is needed then I would opt for some subsidiary articles picking up detailed aspects. Velela (talk) 12:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
No change. I agree with Velela. Water pollution is a major topic that is labeled as such in much of the scientific & technical literature, news media, textbooks, etc. Many people will search for that term. As an encyclopedic reference, Wikipedia must have a major entry for "water pollution," with cross-references as appropriate. I have no objection to having other pages on related topics, such as drinking water. However, you should look at some of the existing pages on those topics--they need work. There is overlap & confusion between drinking water, tap water, water supply, domestic water system, etc. I would prefer to see all of those existing articles organized and edited before we create similar additional pages on related topics. Moreau1 (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
No change. Thanks for the suggestions: you have both persuaded me that splitting the page is a bad idea. I'll try and concentrate on the pages that you mention, Moreau. You are quite right that the majority of people would search for "water pollution". Jimjamjak (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
No change I guess the issue is decided. I agree no change, most people worldwide will search on a thematic title rather than one relating to a national law of the US MBTuser1 (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Organization[edit]

The article needs some more structure and organization. This is a large topic, and currently some aspects of water pollution are covered in great detail, while other major areas have little or no coverage. I am working on an outline in an attempt to better organize the current material and encourage other folks to contribute in their areas of expertise.

  • Introduction
  • Water pollution categories (Surface water: point & nonpoint sources. Groundwater.)
  • Materials and phenomena contributing to water pollution
    • Chemical contaminants
    • Pathogens
    • Physical changes (temperature, discoloration)
  • Transport and chemical reactions of water pollution (Existing section.) Comment: Some of the current text in this section is rather specialized. It may be appropriate to create a separate article for this.
  • Measurement of water pollution
  • Regulatory framework

Comments are welcome. Moreau1 (talk) 04:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I implemented the outline described above, and added a section for Control of water pollution. This section links to other articles, but an overview on water pollution control should be added to this article, including stormwater management (which is not well covered in other articles). More work (text & references) is needed in various sections, including Pathogens; Sampling (separate article also needed); and Biological testing (including microbiological). External links is a random hodgepodge. Also, we still need a separate environmental/human health impacts section. Moreau1 (talk) 03:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

kontol of water pollution[edit]

I have added some material in this section, for each of the major pollution classes. Some more material is needed, esp. agricultural wastewater--and the main article it links to needs major expansion itself.

As per WP:SOAP, this article is not a place to advertise or promote commercial products for pollution control. (Nor is any other Wikipedia article.) Descriptions of generic classes and types of pollution controls and techniques are appropriate. Moreau1 (talk) 05:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have expanded the text in Agricultural wastewater, Thermal pollution and Urban runoff in this article, and in related articles: Agricultural wastewater treatment, Nonpoint source pollution and Thermal pollution. More detailed explanations are needed on these related pages. Moreau1 (talk) 04:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

External links[edit]

I have organized the external links into "Overview Information" and "Analytical Tools and Other Specialized Resources." In keeping with the Wikipedia style guide at WP:LINKS, I have retained links for sites that provide general information on water pollution or analytical tools that are useful to a wide audience. Links to articles, case studies, etc. about pollution at specific locations should be placed on pages about those locations (lakes, rivers, countries, etc.). (I moved one such link to a more specific locational page.) Descriptions of links have been edited to one line each. Moreau1 (talk) 04:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

effect[edit]

this needs a part about the effect on the aquatic community-Sorcerer123 (talk) 23:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Scientists listening to algae detect pollution[edit]

The following contribution was put into Drinking water where it is inappropriate. It may however be more appropriate here (although it sounds like research to me).

In 2009, Israeli researchers from Bar Ilan University developed a method for locating and measuring contamination in water by 'listening' to the sound that algae releases into the water. By analyzing the rate of photosynthesis of plants growing in the water, the scientists are able to discern whether the plant realizes its full photosynthesis potential. When a plant does not reach its potential, this indicates that something is wrong in its growth environment. [1]

 Velela  Velela Talk   16:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life Saver bottle[edit]

Could people here who know about water purification of the poor please comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life Saver bottle. jbolden1517Talk 16:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of redundant and off-topic text[edit]

The text added on point and nonpoint sources was redundant with an existing section in the article--just a few paragraphs above! So I deleted the new text. Please read the article completely before editing. I also deleted text on lead supply pipes. Discussion of drinking water supply is covered by several (overlapping) pages: Drinking water, Drinking water quality in the United States, Safe Drinking Water Act, Lead and copper rule, etc. Some history about lead supply pipes would be welcome on one or more of those pages. Moreau1 (talk) 17:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Seeking info on groundwater contamination by pesticides[edit]

Hi folks. I came here looking for information on groundwater contamination by pesticides. Most importantly, is it okay to spray the yard with commercial synthetic pesticides if we get our drinking water from a local well? ('local' as in backyard, probably; i dont know the specifics but it's hooked up to the house's plumbing). I understand that a proper answer would need more specifics, perhaps. I checked the article on pesticides first (and asked this question at the talkpage there, too). I'll look over the related articles on drinking water and water wells. I believe other readers might like to know, too. -PrBeacon (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't an advice service but in most environmental issues the precautionary principle is generally applied. I.e if you think that a problem might, even remotely might, occur then don't even think about doing it. As an environmental biologist I might also comment that spraying your backyard with pesticide is a very very bad idea as even if it doesn't get into your own drinking water it will inevitably go somewhere and cause pollution there, and depending on the pesticide the pollution could be severe and long lasting.  Velela  Velela Talk   22:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. Framing my question like that was merely an anecdotal way of saying this article could cover something along these lines, and I didn't see it here tho I may have missed something. I know WP is not Ask Jeeves. -PrBeacon (talk) 01:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
The Transport and chemical reactions of water pollutants section of this article would be the appropriate place to explain or summarize the effects of pesticides on water quality, but unfortunately we have not seen any contributions here on that topic. This is a rather specialized topic with extensive ongoing research. It would be helpful if someone familiar with the current research could select some of the most significant recent reports and summarize them in a style that works with this article, or add to the Environmental effects of pesticides article. A number of technical journal articles & reports on pesticide fate & effects have been published in the last few years, but only a few of these are reported by newspapers and other mass media and get "translated" for the general public. (Here's one in the New York Times from 2009: "Debating How Much Weed Killer Is Safe in Your Water Glass.") I asked for some help on this topic back in 2008 (above). More discussion of pesticide effects should also be added to the Groundwater and Nonpoint source pollution articles. Moreau1 (talk) 03:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Does polluting water and polluting air have any connection? 62.150.172.93 (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes.  Velella  Velella Talk   10:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from Torixmicah, 18 March 2011[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} One trillion people die of water pollution because of dirty toilets and dirty water each hour.

I hope this helps you.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Bility (talk) 23:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Rescued text from Water Management[edit]

The following text was added to the Water management article. However it seriously unbalanced that article and seems much more appropriate here. I hope that knowledgeable editors can assimilate appropriate parts into this article (perhaps striking through incorporated parts might assist later editors).

Water pollution regulations[edit]

Some nations are already encountering water scarcity, suffering from various diseases and even death caused by contaminated water use. Water is a vital and limited natural resource, which availability varies in different parts of the world. Unfortunately, harmful human activities tend to constraint access to safe water even more intensively. For this reason well planned and successfully adopted regulations are essential for sustainable water resources management. There is a range of water pollution control policies – ‘command-and-control’ regulation, economic instruments, which adoption may vary according to the particular country. Water pollution may be regulated locally, regionally within a country or internationally, if it is transboundary water sources (such as river, sea, aquifer, etc.)[2].

The predominant direct environmental regulation – the ‘command-and-control’ approach – is based on prescriptive regulation creation, monitoring of its implementation and compliance, and penalising those who failed to comply with it [3]. In case of water pollution control, ‘command-and-control’ approach requires an appliance of specific technologies to regulate quantities of pollution emissions, so called ‘end-of-the-pipe technologies’ (filters, water cleaning installations, etc.), which is operative mostly in ‘point source water pollution’ cases. Furthermore, it determines allowable emission standards for particular industry units or companies. Notwithstanding, the prevailing ‘command-and-control’ approach is often being criticised for its prescriptiveness, costliness, inefficiency and inflexibility, which does not encourage “efficiency-oriented adaptive individual behaviour” [4]. So it is not engaging individuals and not promoting the change of their behaviour, although such initiatives could prevent pollution from happening.

According to the environmental economists, ‘command-and-control’ regulations could be complemented by economic instruments such as taxes, charges and tradable pollution rights, which are more cost effective, flexible and more attractive for business. For instance, the ‘Polluter Pays Principle’ (PPP) could be applied in order to internalise the external cost of industrial, agricultural or private pollution costs. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is encouraging the use of economic instruments in its member countries in order to tackle water pollution issues more effectively, although sometimes OECD also recognises difficulties to design specific policies or regulations, which could directly address the exact problem[5]. The reason for such challenges is that in some cases it is complicated to identify the exact sources of water pollution (non-point source pollution or diffusion). Public involvement into water resource management and its pollution regulation processes is becoming more and more important, because it may be a contributor to tackle pollution. Therefore, OECD is promoting public information and education about possible harm of contaminated water, methods helping to reduce water pollution, etc.[6].

For instance, in European Union (EU) the environmental policy is a distinctive combination of a “country-specific and EU-wide measures”[7], where regulations and policy instruments are created for all member countries, but they may be adopted and adjusted à la particular countries’ regulations. Additionally, EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) and its designed Common Implementation Strategy endeavours to unify water management and regulation forms in all member countries minimising the risk of disputes or even fails in WFD implementation[8]. Furthermore, the decission forum involves experts not only from EU Member States, Accession Countries, but also industrial and environmental NGOs; involvance of environmental Non-governmental Organisations(NGOs)and public actors may ensure more transparency in decission making process and to create incentives for public water pollution control.

 Velella  Velella Talk   22:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Lead image[edit]

I don't think the article should lead with File:Pollution in Maracaibo lake.jpg. Only one sentence in this article is concerned with "trash" as a form of pollution. It may be a high quality photo but that is only one factor and no necessarily apparent that the thumbnail size images are presented at. -- Colin°Talk 11:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. One photo is sufficient for the lead section, and the trash photo is unnecessary. In general, this article has enough photos for its present length. Moreau1 (talk) 05:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Solid waste , although significant, is relatively trivial in its impact compared to other forms of pollution.  Velella  Velella Talk   10:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Removed. Trash is real and a problem, but the significant pollutants are not usually so visible and a visual focus on trash is misleading. Vsmith (talk) 13:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Conversion of river water in to saline and or alkaline water[edit]

Hi, Velella, Will you please elaborate here how the wiki articles Alkali soils and Soil salinity control are not connected to this article "Water pollution" as the placed Wiki references were reverted / deleted by you. Irrigated lands are becoming less productive due to salinity and alkalinity when river water and ground water are used repeatedly which is pollution to water and land caused by human activities. It may not be case in UK due to temperate climate but extensive in arid and semi arid regions. River water and ground water quality is changed drastically effecting the river basin vegetation and aquatic flora and fauna when most of river water is used for evaporo-transpiration and evaporation needs in agriculture, industries, etc. If you have any genuine observations on this subject please state here after reading the content in the articles along with the quoted references.Kwdt2 (talk) 06:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I am very well aware of water process in arid climates and I wholly agree that salination of soils through ill-judged irrigation is a major problem affecting large tracts of land as for example in Western Australia. The current definition at the top of the article is "Water pollution occurs when pollutants are discharged directly or indirectly into water bodies without adequate treatment to remove harmful compounds.". The processes described in Soil salinity control and Alkali soils do not fit within this definition. The second issues I have is that these were inserted as main page links under Agricultural wastewater . By convention there is only one main page link to each heading and I don't believe that it can be argued that these are the relevant main pages in this context.
Personally I would have no problem if links to these pages were included in the See also section. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   22:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

to include: Anti-anxiety drug pollution example effecting animal behavior[edit]

99.112.212.232 (talk) 02:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ [http://www.israel21c.org/bin/en.jsp?enDispWho=Articles^l2188&enPage=BlankPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=object&enVersion=0&enZone=Health[
  2. ^ Cowan, S. (1998). "Water pollution and abstraction and economic instruments". Oxford Review of Economic Policy. 14 (4): 40–49. 
  3. ^ Lübbe-Wolff, G. (2001). "Efficient Environmental Legislation – on Different Philosophies of Pollution Control in Europe". Journal of Environmental Law. 13 (1): 79–87. 
  4. ^ Lübbe-Wolff, G. (2001). "Efficient Environmental Legislation – on Different Philosophies of Pollution Control in Europe". Journal of Environmental Law. 13 (1): 79–87. p. 79 
  5. ^ Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, (OECD). "OECD Environmental Outlook" (PDF). Retrieved 4 April 2011. 
  6. ^ Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, (OECD). "OECD Environmental Outlook" (PDF). Retrieved 4 April 2011. 
  7. ^ Harrington, W. "Economic Incentives versus Command and Control: What’s the Best Approach for Solving Environmental Problems?" (PDF). Resources for the Future. Retrieved 6 April 2011.  Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  8. ^ European Commission. "Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC): Strategic Document" (PDF). Retrieved 6 April 2011. 

Wikipedia Primary School invitation[edit]

Hi everybody. On behalf of the teams behind the Wikipedia Primary School research project, I would like to announce that this article was selected a while ago to be reviewed by an external expert. We'd now like to ask interested editors to join our efforts and improve the article before September 15, 2015 (any timezone) as they see fit; a revision will be then sent to the designated expert for review. Any notes and remarks written by the external expert will be made available on this page under a CC-BY-SA license as soon as possible, so that you can read them, discuss them and then decide if and how to use them. Please sign up here to let us know you're collaborating. Thanks a lot for your support! --Elitre (WPS) (talk) 13:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

We can start by listing topics or sections in the article that need improvement. Perhaps the most important need is a new section on Effects/impacts of water pollution. This section should address both human health and environmental effects. (There is a brief discussion in the Introduction section.) Also, many of the references, while still valid sources, have broken links. Moreau1 (talk) 01:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, Moreau1! Please feel free to involve other interested editors if you want. Best, --151.42.16.103 (talk) 08:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC) - Elitre (WPS) logged out

Globalize[edit]

Most of the sources and too much of this article is referring to the context in the USA, whereas water pollution is clearly an international issue. It is not appropriate to have so many references to the EPA, US legislation etc in an international article. Cleanup urgently needed, please help to make this more international. JMWt (talk) 14:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it's not too bad or perhaps I didn't read it carefully enough yet. Some sections seem quite general and only some sections are U.S.-centric in my view. Which parts exactly do you have in mind? - And also there is this section: "Water pollution by country" although I don't think such a list is really conforming with Wikipedia style - but I am not too sure how to do it differently. In general I think this article should not go into too much depth on any issue but to provide an overview and then link to all the various pages where more details are provided. EvM-Susana (talk) 11:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I was working through the references the other day - the majority are for the USA (and, actually most are broken links). I removed these but the edits were reverted, so we're left with a lot of references which apply only to the USA and which are broken anyway.JMWt (talk) 13:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Water pollution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Water pollution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Review within the Wikipedia Primary School project[edit]

Sala Water pollution.pdf

Hi all. As anticipated, some weeks ago Simone Sala agreed to review this article within the scope of the project linked above. You can find his notes in the PDF I just uploaded to Commons. We'd like to thank Simone Sala for his work and for his helpful notes. We invite everybody to feel free to reuse the review to improve the article and/or to comment it here. Best, Anthere (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

To facilitate the editing process, I copied Simone Sala notes below.

Quality of the Summary[edit]

Is the summary of the article a complete, thorough, and concise introduction to the topic? How do you think the summary could be improved? Which meaningful data are missing? Is there something that you find too much detailed for a general overview of the topic?

The summary provides a complete, thorough, and concise introduction to the topic. It could be improved by providing global and regional figures instead of examples from single countries (i.e. India, China and US).
The data and information provided is not too much detailed for a general overview of the topic.

Personally, I find the summary too short. EvMsmile (talk) 02:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Structure and style of the article[edit]

Is the article properly presenting the topic for a general public? Does the article provide a complete and easy-to-navigate structure? Which paragraph would you add, unify or split into different parts? Please provide a list of suggestions. Is the article well written and understandable at a high school level?

The article is well written, adequately presents the topic to a general audience, and can be understood at a high school level. The navigation structure is clear and complete.
The paragraph on physical testing could be expanded, and the term “turbidity” should be linked to the related entry in Wikipedia.

note that turbidity already has a Wikilink where it appears first; we are not supposed to hyperlink it each time?EvMsmile (talk) 02:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Content[edit]

Is the article comprehensive of major facts related to the topic? Is the article adequately placing the subject in context? What does it miss? Please provide a list of topics you think should be included in the article (suggestions must be related to bibliography). Do you find that some arguments are not meaningful or representative of the topic for a general public. What should be deleted? Please explain why.

The article includes all the major facts related to the topic, and adequately places the subject in context.
I think that all the topics are meaningful and representatives for a general public.

International and local dimension[edit]

Is the article neutral (it presents general and acknowledged views fairly and without bias)? Is the article representative of the international dimension and consolidated research about the topic? If applicable, does the article feature examples from all over the world (no localisms)? Please draft a list of what is missing with related references.

Despite having links to water pollution in different countries, most of the examples and pictures are from the United States. I would recommend including examples from other countries as well. Particularly, there are no examples from the European Union.

Good point - could remove the U.S. focus a bit; if we give more examples, then lets give more examples from developing countries (rather than the EU), as the problems with water pollution are even more pronounced there. Could probably easily pull some images e.g. from the article on water pollution in India.EvMsmile (talk) 02:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

References (essential to allow the articles to be improved)[edit]

Is the list of publications comprehensive and updated? Does it list the fundamental monographs and papers? Please provide primary/generic and secondary/original resources which need to be included and suggest the list of publications which should be removed.

I consider the list of publications comprehensive, even though the references on current pollution figures [1-7] may be updated.

This article violates our Manual of Style[edit]

This article contains the ungrammatical expression "and/or" which is prohibited per Wikipedia:Manual of Style, which states that we should use either the expression "and" or the expression "or" but not "and/or". Žikica Milošević (talk) 02:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)