Talk:United States regulation of point source water pollution

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

I think you have made a decent start to your article. I personally would like to see your section current regulations be more impactful. What are the impacts of the regulations you mentioned? What other impacts are there? Did you think about looking by US region (like Great Lakes vs Atlantic) and whether there are different regulations between those regions? Also, does regulation depend on the size or purpose of the source? Just a few questions I had after reading the current article. Over all I like your start. Can't wait to see what else you come up with. Jthebooknerd87 (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may change the article title into: United States Point Source Water Pollution Regulations to reduce duplication. I also think you need to focus more on domestic point source water pollution instead of focusing on foreign experiences. If possible, you can add one section about domestic regulations. huiyao (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also think you need to divide up your regulation section into U.S. and international. Having the international paragraph between sections on U.S. regulations is a bit confusing and keeps the article from reading right. I'm also curious about the history of pswp - maybe go into why it's important to have these policies (prevention of disease, environmental quality), especially since the article is about point source water pollution, not just the policies related to it (although those are our focus) Bkmertz (talk) 03:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My main suggestion for the article is that you consider framing it, or at least a large segment of it, in terms of policy instruments. The regulations section is currently framed primarily in terms of domestic and international laws. The legal analysis is fine, but you should break down those laws into specific policy instruments and provide information on those instruments' effectiveness. I also don't think you should link immediately at the top of this article to the point source pollution page. That page is not very good, and you don't want to send your readers there before they even have a chance to read your article. However, you might actually want to expand on the point source pollution article with information you gather for this article. Gardner.rw1 (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The above suggestions are well worth considering. Do engage in dialogue with their editors on their talk pages (they won't bite).
• Specifically, the article should be quite clear (in the lede/lead and the title) that it is about point source water pollution in the USA - the assignment is about United States Public Policy, isn't it?
• You need to think about the relationship between this article and the Point source pollution one. Feel free to edit the latter if you think it needs it. IMO, that article is the overview of various types of pollution (not just in the US). This one here is the main article on point source water pollution (in the USA), and I think that the "main article" link in this article is wrong. Have a look at Wikipedia:General overview article and Wikipedia:Summary style and then at, say, William Shakespeare, to see how these things work in Wikipedia.
• Hope this helps. More tomorrow, probably. --GuillaumeTell 00:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• (P.S. There's a grammatical error in the second sentence of the lede. You need to eliminate it!)

You guys have the start of a good article here with a solid outline and background to go off of. Here are a few (unfortunately some repeated) suggestions:

• I feel like the regulation section should separate out the regulations into their own individual bullet points with explanations following those points. In this way, the individual regulations are easy to identify and what they entail is easier to read as compared to paragraph form
• Secondly, I agree that the international section should have it's own separate heading away from the regulation section, which should be titled "Regulation in the U.S.". Additionally, the international regulation could just be removed from the article entirely since this is a U.S. focused article.
• Perhaps you should also consider whether or not future issues should be included. If you do, maybe you want to re-title the subheading additional concerns or something of that nature to give it the appearance of more concrete facts.
• Finally, since Wikipedia requires that articles are not biased, if you guys can find any information on groups insisting that point source pollution is not an issue, it could give your article a unique contrast to the above presented information.

Good Luck! TrueBlueWolverine (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States regulation of point source water pollution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130521214532/http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/generalissues/watertechnology.cfm to http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/generalissues/watertechnology.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]