Talk:Sanitation in ancient Rome

What's wrong with this stub?

I'm guessing someone tagged it because it's a tad short...the cleanup tag doesn't mean it's a bad article, but that there's more information on the subject that should be added. Someone will delete it once the article begins to take shape.

PS On comment pages like this, if you type four tildes ~ then it will leave your name and the time you left your comment, ie:

Czolgolz 12:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this can be used in the articleCristianChirita

more links?

there isn't a single link in the text linking to another article. 70.190.53.158 20:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of January 13, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Mostly Manual of Style compliant and readable, but the article does need breaking down in to smaller, more digestible paragraphs. The article also seriously suffers from a lack of necessary linking. Links should be made for place names, pronouns, and other historically relevant topics. {{Seealso}} and/or {{Mainarticle}} links, such as for sewage and trash, need to be added.

2. Factually accurate?: In terms of meeting the GA requirements for verifiability, this article is extremely poor. Simply having sources laid out in a References section is not enough. In-line citations must be made to those sources, either in footnote or Harvard referencing format. According to the GA criteria, GA-class work "at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged.." Currently there is only one inline citation present in the article. This is unacceptable.

3. Broad in coverage?: Trash and sewage were not the only basic issues of sanitation in Roman (or any) civilization. Food sanitation, the potability of water, and environmental sanitation are all aspects requiring consideration in their own sections. In ignoring these altogether, this article clearly fails the broadness criterion of GA.

4. Neutral point of view?: Fair treatment for all significant points of view.

5. Article stability? Not the subject of currents events or edit warring.

6. Images?: Images present have the proper licensing.

Closing comments: I have chosen not to provide a hold period for this nomination. This is because according to the guidelines of GA reviewing, holds are only for minor improvements to what is already basically a GA-class article. As this article's referencing needs a major overhaul and some basic subjects are not covered, I do not think it meets that definition.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— VanTucky 02:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Health Impacts

Currently the information in Health Impacts makes no sense. I'm going to delete what is there and remake it. If you want to help be sure to know that these advanced sanitation systems did not stop the spread of disease. Most argue that the baths and latrines helped spread disease. Parasites, bacteria and other forms of disease thrived in those environments. --TheUserU2 (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

thanks for adding the additional content with references. The part that you deleted seemed to make sense to me, but it was lacking a reference. However, the section is now worded to mention only the negative aspects of how diseases spread in those baths etc. Don't we also have references that show that the sanitation that was provided DID improve public health compared to cities that had no sanitation? EMsmile (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)