Talk:Water supply and sanitation in Ecuador

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA)[edit]

This new section includes some content that is not appropriately referenced. The website of the USTDA indicated as a source does not seem to include the information inserted in the article. Other content uses a biased article on the Guayaquil concession as a source. That article itself includes some information that is not backed up by specific figures (e.g. on tariff increases) or puts information out of context (e.g. public water systems do not provide good quality drinking water in Ecuador either, while the charge is only made against the private concession). While it would be welcome to have more information on the Guayaquil concession in the article, it should be balanced, well-referenced and in a more appropriate section of the article (e.g. on service provision or history and recent developments). For the time being, I would suggest to remove the section, but would like to seek inputs from others before doing it.--Mschiffler (talk) 01:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC) No inputs has been received and I am going to remove the section accordingly.--Mschiffler (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Revamped introduction feedback.[edit]

The rewritten introduction located here looks much better. I have noticed a couple of minor points; there are certain parts in which it is clear that the section has been based upon the essay. First the use of "is characterized by" (which is a very minor issue), and the second is "making municipalities highly dependent on financial transfers from the central government" (the second is mostly just a change in tense from the original). These are quite distinctive phrasings. This stems from there being the one source, and the attempt to alter it to be acceptable, rather than boiling it all down and building something new from the facts. For me, it seems as though using "financial transfers" is a little odd; I'm not sure that that phrasing would occur naturally without the original text; "central government investment" would probably be what I'd say, or even totally rephrasing the sentence.

One of the remaining challenges is limited cost recovery, making municipalities highly dependent on financial transfers from the central government. would become something like:

Municipalities rely overwhelmingly upon central government investment, rather than recouping the costs at a local level. I'm not well versed in the subject, so the meaning may not be spot on, but you get the point. – Toon(talk) 18:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Any of these suggestions is fine with me. Please go ahead and make the changes as you see fit.--Mschiffler (talk) 02:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)