Talk:Water supply and women in developing countries

Untitled
I added the course banner. It would be good to start (carry on) the discussion of questions on this Talk page. BerikG (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)BerikG

Peer Review
Hi Bryan, as prof. Berik mentioned today in class, your article stands short of the minimum word requirement, so you definitely need to add more headings and text in your article. I would suggest that you should discuss the history of colonialism and imperialism, and how it kept the infrastructure in developing countries backward and primitive. Moreover, you can discuss the contemporary economic policies of development which are not addressing the core problems, like we saw in the video on Senegal, where private French corporations have overtaken the water supply of the country, and it had adverse effects on the lives of women. Furthermore, you can raise the point that it is gender division of labor which has been internalized by the developing countries, hence, only women perform these kinds of labor. You have picked a very interesting topic, I am looking forward to read your final version. Dkhan2012 (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)Dkhan2012

Peer Review
Bryan, so far I think you have a good article. It is an interesting topic and there is some really good information in there. There were just a few grammatical things I found like proper punctuation with the references. Two that I noticed were for reference #2 and #8. It would be a good idea to just re-read with that in mind. Also, there were a couple sentences that were a little confusing. In your "Inclusion" section, the last sentence is a little lengthy and could benefit form some re-structuring to make it easier to understand. I also think this section could benefit form some more information to help with your overall word requirement and to help explain "women in planning". One other sentence in the "Malawi" section; "Women in Malawi have also initiative" doesn't quite make sense. Overall, I think you have done a nice job with the article. It just wouldn't hurt to have a little more information throughout. I look forward to seeing the completed version. Alainas (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)Alainas

Peer Review
The overall article was well written and informational this issue is very controversial and difficult to cover on Wikipedia. I thought you did a nice job of making sure everything was cited. The article was short I liked the specific examples of water supply in developing countries. It would be exciting to see more examples in the article. I think it would be interesting to see what countries have the biggest problem with women and the water supply. It might be very controversial but you might want to call the big corporations out on their schemes, I watched a documentary and there are only a few corporations in the world who handle all of the privatized water. Its a long shot but it would be very informative.Schmitt.ginny (talk) 03:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments
The scope of the article is a bit narrow and needs elaboration in a number of places. I do not understand why you do not have a section on the effects of privatization of water distribution systems on workloads of women/girls and health outcomes for women/girls and schooling of girls. You mention privatization in the lead paragraph but then do not return to elaborate the beneficial or adverse effects that disproportionately affect women. Also there is a scholarly literature on this topic, not just writings by women's rights and water advocacy organizations. It seems the "Access" and "Health Effects" subsections have to be placed (with further elaborations) at the outset, shortly after the lead paragraph. The logic would be to discuss the causes of the problem first (the problem as you identify is "Lack of sanitized water supply"), then follows consequences (all the workloads, health effects issues), and finally, the solutions where, as you discuss, women are being integrated in decision making in many parts of the world (your "Inclusion..." and "Specific Examples" sections).

The quotation under Chile needs a reference and a page number (all quotes need page numbers).

Several sentences need a time dimension and author/researcher name: For example, "In Ghana, women and children suffer as the result of access issues relating to failed water supply schemes: in some instances women consume unclean water to save money to feed children" Here, specify the year and indicate the name of the researcher and scope/type of research. For example: "According to X, in Ghana in year women and children were found to...."

The Institutional Reaction section is a bit cryptic and needs to be unpacked. There is a nonfunctioning link to MDGs. Since access to clean water is part of MDG 7, mentioning that earlier, perhaps even in the lead paragraph, would be useful. BTW, the fact that privatization/commercialization of water impedes achievement of MDG 7 re water is explained in an article (with no gender lens, alas!) by Hulya Dagdeviren in the context of the Zambia.

In general, I suggest avoiding some of the institutional "talk" and focusing on where all this "talk" about involving women etc. has led. That is, focus on the actual outcomes and what the obstacles that stand in the way of achieving access to clean water are (which disproportionately affects the wellbeing of women and girls). Otherwise a lot of agencies say a lot of things that they intend to do etc. and I would suggest complementing the text on the promises (the talk),with research on the "walk"/the documented/debated outcomes. BerikG (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)BerikG

Comments
This article covers an important topic and includes relevant information. I understand that it is part of an effort of students to become authors of Wikipedia, which is an important endeavor. I hope that the following comments can help to further improve the article:
 * The structure of the text could be improved, so that there is a clearer story line. The list of examples is a case in point. Some of them refer to laws, others to strategies, others to specific cases where gender aspects were not taken into account. It may be more useful to group all country experiences under specific country headings, including those experiences quoted in later sections, or group all country experiences in topical sections, instead of mixing the two structures.
 * The article includes some information that does not make specific reference to women, such as the cholera outbreak in South Africa. I suggest to limit the article to the specific subject of the article.
 * The quotes include no page numbers. This makes it hard to check the quotes. In one case, the original text appears to have been misquoted. Please add page numbers to all the sources in order to make verifiability easier.
 * The lead section should strive to be a summary of the salient features of the article. This is only partially the case now.--Mschiffler (talk) 23:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Merger
As a result of the recent AfD, this article is a "fairly close duplicate" of Water access and gender Water issues in developing countries (as concluded by the AfD closer). This article ought to be merged to its duplicate, i.e., Water access and gender. I recommend the merger. XavierItzm (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is being discussed on the talk page of water access and gender now. (let's not discuss it on two talk pages but only there) EMsmile (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I see the merger has now been done - thanks User:Klbrain! - This article needs further work. If I had time my next step would be to change the headings into generic headings and re-arrange accordingly. Things like "Background", "Challenges", "Solutions", "Legislation", "Society and culture" and alike.EMsmile (talk) 05:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article needs some top-level headings (as you suggest) within which existing topics can be discussed as subsections; it is currently rather piecemeal. Klbrain (talk) 07:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * @Klbrain I thought about doing some work on the headings but then I wondered if it's worth it, given the very low view rates for this Wikipedia article (average is 5 views per day which is very low). Perhaps it should be merged into an overarching article such as water issues in developing countries or WASH. What do you think? EMsmile (talk) 01:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd be hesitant about merging it elsewhere without views being checked at WikiProject Women. I see that WikiProject Gender Studies is listed as involved, but perhaps that's not quite the right project. It's not an area of particular expertise for me, but I feel that there are particular aspects of water access for women which are more relevant. Perhaps moving to that project (and suggestions for better integration into other pages) might be helpful. Klbrain (talk) 07:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * @Klbrain What did you mean by "Perhaps moving to that project"? What are the concrete steps you propose for me to take if I want to merge it into a higher level article? I think it is an important topic but cannot really be talked about in isolation, without duplicating content that is elsewhere. Compare e.g. with WASH. EMsmile (talk) 01:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Not merging this article elsewhere; just changing the project template from 'Gender Studies' to 'Women', as I've just done. Klbrain (talk) 07:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've just written on the talk page of WikiProject Women to see if anyone from that project has an opinion about this. The question is: Perhaps it should be merged into an overarching article such as water issues in developing countries or WASH. EMsmile (talk) 02:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Nobody responded yet on the WikiProject Women talk page. I have posted a reminder. But if there is no response then we have to just make our own decisions, @Klbrain. EMsmile (talk) 05:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed; your plan from 8th October looks fine. Klbrain (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * @Klbrain Like I said earlier: "I thought about doing some work on the headings but then I wondered if it's worth it, given the very low view rates for this Wikipedia article (average is 5 views per day which is very low). Perhaps it should be merged into an overarching article such as water issues in developing countries or WASH". Given the lack of responses from others, I think it's safe to go ahead and do the merger. I will put that on my to-do list (to move the content of this article into WASH)... By the way, the article was created in 2012 as a student assignment (see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bryancraven) and has received very little editing work since then...) Students often prefer to start a new article rather than adding new content to existing articles which is a pity (but the article on WASH didn't yet exist back then). EMsmile (talk) 14:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, I have made that merger now; content from this article moved to WASH. Still need to tidy up and remove repetition etc.EMsmile (talk) 03:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Klbrain: I see you have added the redirect to a particular section now. I think this will soon become obsolete because that particular section title is likely to change soon, once I amalgamate and merge properly in the coming days. Just a heads up. I think it's best to not redirect it to a particular section because the content about women and water will probably appear in the WASH article in several sections. EMsmile (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm relaxed about a change in the redirect, but do think that there should be a section that focusses on the specific issues related to women. Targeting the topic of page would be awkward because peopled linked or searching Water supply and women in developing countries will not naturally understand the term WASH; see WP:NATURALNESS and the least astonishment principle (WP:R). Klbrain (talk) 09:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article was the subject of an educational assignment at University of Utah supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)