Talk:Bottled water ban

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jose carlos42, Waxiong, Jtang17, Stl010, Dmia8. Peer reviewers: Jose carlos42, Jtang17, Stl010.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Does the article provide enough context of the bottled water ban?

This article can be improved by providing a clear and brief introduction that include the background of this policy and provide both rationales and controversies of bottled water ban. By adding these rationales of bottled water ban, people who are not familiar with this issue can be educated about this issue and understand the significance of this movement. Besides rationales, related controversy should be brought up as well to make this article neutral. After providing this information, readers can examine each rationale and controversy, and readers get a full comprehension of which group can be benefited and which group will lose from bottled water ban. Waxiong (talk) 05:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Because environmental and health issues are the main reasons why bottled water bans are being proposed and implemented, the introduction could include both the statistics on environmental and health impacts that have prompted certain groups to be alarmed about water bottles in the first place, as well as a brief history of water bottle use, in order to better demonstrate the timeline leading up to the point of the water bottle bans. Stl010 (talk) 05:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Is the statement not specific? Can there be more information?

There is a statement under "Controversy" tab: "Some businesses oppose the ban, saying it restricts of freedom of choice and will simply drive bottled water sales out of town." The statement uses "some" to describe the opponent businesses to the bottled water ban. This statement can be improved by adding specific descriptions with reliable sources to illustrate that which businesses oppose the ban and what cause them to oppose.Waxiong (talk) 05:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Under Bundanoon, New South Wales, Australia the last sentence states: "The decision to ban bottled water came partly from opposition to the proposed bottling plant, and partly from opposition to the environmental and health impacts." I think this statement can be made more specific by stating why were the residents opposed to the bottling plant coming to their town. Also, it only states "environmental and health impacts" but the reader could greatly benefit if these were listed or if examples were provided as to which are some of the impacts. Jose carlos42 (talk) 18:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Another area in which the article could be expanded is including an "ALTERNATIVES" section. The reader learns about the plastic bottle bans out there, and if he becomes interested maybe they want to contribute to using less plastic. If the article includes alternatives people could switch to from plastic bottles it could help get more people involved.Jose carlos42 (talk) 18:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

If an alternatives section is included, to keep the article neutral the writer could include why companies and manufacturers haven't tried using other bottles, example: glass. Is it because of costs, convenience, shipping? What is preventing companies and manufacturers from ditching plastic bottles a a whole.Jose carlos42 (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

How does a ban get incorporated? I think a section that could strengthen the article would be a section detailing some of the processes by which a ban gets put in place. Different countries and cities have different procedures but a few examples could be provided for the reader to understand how would something like this take place, or how has it been done already: is it through a ballot, did people protest/ boycott, was it legislation, etc. Jose carlos42 (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Under the "Inspiration for other bans" section a lot more information can be provided to increase the detail and credibility for example, the part that says a high school kid attempted a ban and its got shut down, what were the reasons behind those involved in voting against it. Jose carlos42 (talk) 18:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Why is the ban important? What should people support a ban on plastic bottles? What are the effects of plastic bottles? I think incorporating some sort of history on why the ban is important in society would be beneficial to prove to reader why it is of importance or why it is not important. It should look into both aspects, like why people want a ban versus those who don't, to remain content neutral. Jtang17 (talk) 06:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the municipal bans could be expanded. It should include more than just 2 countries. Also, the United States portion could expand to other cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, New York and other large cities to see their stance on the plastic water bottle ban. More research should be done to see if any other countries or cities have the water bottle ban. If not, then one could discuss why. This could provide a varied perspective on why or why not countries or cites have the ban or not. Jtang17 (talk) 06:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Under Municipal bans for the United States, there is a line that says "further restrictions based on San Francisco ordinance". As a reader, I have no idea what San Francisco ordinances are. I would go into a little more detail on the ordinances or cite them so someone can refer to them. Jtang17 (talk) 06:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Under the "Bundanoon, New South Wales, Australia" tab, it is mentioned that the bottled water ban led to intense media coverage, but it does not specify the stance that the media took in this situation. Did different media outlets respond or portray it differently? Did the media have a noticeable influence on the way the ban was perceived by the public? The period of time the media covered the issue could also be an indication of how long the ban was considered to be newsworthy (by either the media or the public) before moving onto other issues in the community. Stl010 (talk) 05:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Do all the links in the article work?

For the statement under "Controversy" tab: "Some businesses oppose the ban, saying it restricts of freedom of choice and will simply drive bottled water sales out of town." The link(reference 13) to this statement is not found. Therefore, a new link or information needs to be provided. Waxiong (talk) 05:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

For the "Concord, Massachusetts, United States" section, the link(reference 11) for the second and third paragraph is not found. The information provided in these two paragraphs is very dense and detailed. Therefore, a link is needed to check if there is close paraphrasing. Waxiong (talk) 06:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

For reference number 19 discussing Sikkim, India and their banning of plastic water bottles, the link takes you to "latest news". The link should be corrected to take someone to the actually document instead of the general latest news page. Jtang17 (talk) 06:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Are there view points that are overrepresented/ underrepresented?

The article does not provide enough background and information and it could keep the reader confused. The article could me made stronger by including the reasons behind the plastic bottle ban, this may seem obvious to many but others do not have much knowledge on the dangers of plastics. Also, the article must include the perspectives from those against the ban in order to remain neutral. I believe the article should begin with an introduction and include some of the scientific reasons as to why the plastic ban I think these are underrepresented and the article focuses too much on the places and the processed that have done the ban, but not enough "why". Most wikipedia articles do have an introduction, I don't know why this one doesn't. Jose carlos42 (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The article does not equally represent those opposing the plastic bottle ban, it provides some vague lines but it does not give solid arguments. For example, a manufacturers costs and how they are just operating their company at the most efficient and profitable way possible. Jose carlos42 (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

While the article mentions that bottled water bans have stirred controversy in certain cities, it does not fully explain the conversations taking place surrounding this topic. Which groups have had great influence in the policy-making process? Likewise, while the article does mention different parties in each case study that have openly opposed the ban, it does not give the companies' reasons as to why. It would be helpful for the reader to know these reasons, especially if there are more reasons than a ban leading to a loss in business Lastly, a viewpoint I find the article to be extremely lacking in is the environmental reasoning behind bottled water bans. It was mentioned in the first sentence of the introduction, but never addressed again. Stl010 (talk) 02:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Is the article neutral?

I believe the article leans heavily towards favoring the plastic bottle ban. It only focuses in providing information of places who have done the plastic bottle ban and their reasons, but it doesn't give much on opposition. It gives some sentences on "Controversy" but not many specifics, just by stating: "some businesses...". The article could provide some examples of cities, towns, or countries that have turned down measures to ban plastic bottles. Jose carlos42 (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the last statement. It does seem to favor the plastic bottle ban. I believe that this issue has much controversy not only with businesses but with individual choice based on cost and convenience. To make it more neutral, citing more specific businesses who oppose the ban and actions to keep plastic water bottles would be beneficial. Jtang17 (talk) 06:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Where this may lead?

The article could provide a section talking about the precedent this type of ban is setting. What alternatives could this bans bring: will new bottles be designed with new technologies? Will all plastic bottles be banned, soft drinks? Have any places taken it a step further and banned other plastic items, like containers or plastic ware? Jose carlos42 (talk) 18:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Other than city municipalities, the article could talk about how attempts to make system-wide change is happening on smaller scales as well - particularly on college and university levels. Also, what conversations are taking place regarding other single-use plastic products, which pose similar environmental and health threats? Stl010 (talk) 03:13, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Is any information out of date?

What else has happened in this movement to ban plastic bottles? It's almost 2017 and the article is lacking a lot of municipalities that have banned or are in the process of banning, it lists some recent information, but it focuses too much on "the first ban" the article should focus more on where it's going and be actively updated on new cities that accept the ban or places that shut it down.Jose carlos42 (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

In addition to updating the status of other cities that have proposed or enacted bans within the past several years, it would be helpful to know what has taken place in such municipalities since implementing their bottled water bans. Although there tends to be controversy when bottled water bans are proposed or first enacted, does the controversy dissipate overtime? What have been the positive and negative effects of such bans on businesses and communities? Stl010 (talk) 02:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Does the article discuss the pros and cons of bottled water ban?

This article could be improved by talking about the winner and loser of the bottled water ban policy. For example, if this policy passes, potential losers will be water bottle companies which are driven out of business because of this policy. Potential winners are alternative water sellers, such as those who sell water or drinks in glass bottle or reusable bottle. By examining both pros and cons of this policy, we can understand what this policy can lead to. Waxiong (talk) 01:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I believe that this article could discuss the environmental pros and cons of the bottled water ban. One could go into detail about the pros and cons of how plastic water bottle affect the environment. One could also go into a deeper analysis on the future of plastic water bottles and how it could potentially affect the world we live in. Jtang17 (talk) 06:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bottled water ban. 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/20130325130243/http://www.concordma.gov/pages/ConcordMA_TownClerk/FAQ%20Water%20Bottle%20Bylaw.pdf to http://www.concordma.gov/pages/ConcordMA_TownClerk/FAQ%20Water%20Bottle%20Bylaw.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 14:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bottled water ban. 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/20130330214005/http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/metro-west/12007312836285/concord-approves-bottle-ban-by-narrow-vote/ to http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/metro-west/12007312836285/concord-approves-bottle-ban-by-narrow-vote/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 00:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)