Talk:Environmental remediation

Environment B‑class Mid‑importance

	Environment portal 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.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comments

--Alex 16:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The content of this page is highly specialized in that it focuses only on environmental remediation. While it clearly identifies that and is well written, my opinion is that it needs to have additional general info and possibly have the environmental aspects moved to their own page.--Prainog 00:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, especially as the two links I've seen to this article so far (at Therapy and Treatment) are referring to remediation in medical form. I'm nowhere near knowledgeable enough to make the changes myself, however. --Dreaded Walrus 05:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've created the Remediation (disambiguation) page - and suggest other uses of the term be added there as articles are written. The current page has over 100 links to it and virtually all are to the environmental usage. I would reccommend creation of articles Remediation (medical) and Remediation (cultural) for the other usages. The current article could be moved to Environmental remediation, but that would involve fixing the links in the 100+ linking articles. --Vsmith 03:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The disambiguation page disappeared, but I think that shouldn't be a big problem. It looks like the vast majority of the pages with links to remediation are via the Template:Environmental technology. If that was updated, all of those would be updated automatically. My recommendation is to relocate the article to Remediation (Environmental) and put a redirect to there from Remediation until the remaining links have been adjusted. --Prainog 08:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I belive this page should be moved to environmental remediation and a Page with general info should be erected in its place. My $0.02. HellBlazed 12:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link to example of major remediation

I have reverted the change which removed the link to the Rhodes, Sydney, NSW, remediation website. While the website has not been updated it contains a huge amount of archival material which describes a major remediation project (the US EPA visited Homebush Bay and called it the third most polluted waterway in the world). This is one of the few major projects which has both land and sediment remediation, includes major residential redevelopment and is recent - the project itself is still underway. If there is concern that the website might be out of date, then more recent or up to date web sites ought to be added. dinghy 22:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but... the link I removed was and is out of place as it is an external link and not a see also to another wikipedia article. In addition there are two other links to the same website within the discussion of the stated example. These two links are over-kill already without the see also. In addition the section referred to seems to be rather heavy on the advocacy side and not presented in a NPOV tone and is in need of editing for tone. If written properly the advocacy website sould be cited as a reference along with some non-advocacy news or governmental references for back-up or balance. Perhaps user Phanly/dinghy could edit the section to improve this problem as he/she seems quite interested in the topic. Vsmith 03:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that some other websites could be cited and that my style might not be "encyclopeadic" enough, but the content relating to rhodes on this wikipedia page is not intended as advocacy, but rather to give a short summary of the wealth of material available and the importance and impact of the contamination from and remediation of this site. While the website might have advocacy, it also has presentations by the remediators and reports by government authorities and is therefore suitable for citing. Given the material on the page and the links in the text the "See also" link could be removed and might be in the wrong place per the style guide. dinghy 03:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest that this "example" be moved to a separate, more detailed article devoted entirely to Homebush Bay, with a link from Remediation? It would keep this article cleaner, and allow you to fully explain the significance of the site. --Barefootmatt 19:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move article?

Perhaps moving this article to Environmental remediation (currently a redirect page) would better reflect its specialized scope, and free up the current page for disambiguation or a more general article. Tapatio 16:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC) what[reply]

Environmental technology template

I'd like to replace the Environmental technology template with one that matches the standard navbox style, i.e. horizontal instead of vertical, collapsing and typically placed at the bottom of article pages. I've done a mock up of what this would look like at {{User:Jwanders/ET}}. Figured this was a big enough change that I should post before going ahead with it. Please discuss here--jwanders^Talk 22:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Fresh Look?

This article suffers from a lack of focus. An environmental remediation project is the product of the physical processes and technology that allow for property to be cleaned and reclaimed, and the public policy that allows the project to proceed. Contributors go into an acceptable amount of detail in addressing remediation methods; knowledge of the physical methodology of remediation is key to gaining an understanding of the topic. However the article seems to lose focus when addressing the policy side of the issue. The policy portion of the article is necessarily broad in scope because as it points out, different countries have different policies and laws in place to address environmental remediation issues. I would argue that a comparison of policy standards between the U.S. and “baskets” of countries around the globe, examining common processes, standards and funding, might provide a more useful format for understanding environmental remediation, irrespective of a reader’s origin. Subheadings beginning at “Community Consultation and Information” do not appear well developed enough to warrant inclusion.

Also, the article links to "property", with regards to "property title". A link to "title" might be more relevant.

Lack of references

This article has only four references. Much of the text is therefore unsubstantiated; it may thus be either mere opinion or "original research". Someone should post a notice on this article that it needs more "in-line citations". Cwkmail (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Environmental remediation. 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:

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 22:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]