Talk:Housecleaning

Housecleaning received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Tags on Housecleaning article

I read this: Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems. All it needs, if anything is the cleanup tage according to that article. The article is not a how-to, so that parameter should not be there. If you want to see what a how-to is like see Wikihow.--Chuck (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC) copied here from my talk page --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{howto}} is appropriate, as the article gets into unnecessary details about how to solve the problem, like "Soap and water or another cleaner removes the dirt by putting it in solution. A modern alternative to the bucket and sponge is the spray bottle, but the scientific principle is the same. Cleaning supplies have directions and are sold at janitorial and other stores.". {{tone}} and {{essay}} are appropriate for similar reasons related to what the article is communicating, with sections like "Someone might slip on old batteries or jelly beans or magazines left on the floor. Apple cores and old TV dinners might attract flies, bugs or mice." This is not encyclopedic way to discuss the topic. And {{cleanup}} is necessary for obvious structure and formatting reasons. Finally, including all these tags helps increase the visibility of the article to multiple editors who monitor the related categories of articles that need attention. This isn't meant to be a criticism of your work, but merely a way to get others to help improve the article. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a how-to. How-to articles say: Step one. Fill the bucket halfway with warm water. Step two. And so on. I am not writing it like that. -- Chuck (talk) 15:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, concerning {{howto}}, I reworded section “Dirtiness.” Concerning {{tone}} and {{essay}}, I reworded section “litter problem” and changed the name of the section to “Indoor litter.” Concerning {{cleanup}}, both of the above.--Chuck (talk) 09:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning chemicals

I’m reading part 3 of the Rodale book and wrote a section about cleaning chemicals. I’ll add it after I get a new photo ready. I was going to use a picture of a cleaning product. However, I was bitten by a parrot yesterday so now I’m going to use a picture of a blood stain. --Chuck (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm concerned by your approach to some of this, WP:NPOV is that standard. Reading a single author and taking their view of things as definitive or basing the article purely on that is not the best way to do things. Additionally there are problems between the nature of a book trying to extensively cover a subject from a practical perspective (say) and the needs of the encyclopedia. The article as it stands is far too complicated for what is a fairly simple subject, it goes into too much detail (and repeats) on the details of today, but doesn't cover the stuff which you might expect to find in an encylopedia, such as the history/origins/development of housecleaning. Whilst I don't mean the history/origins/development of things associated with house cleaning, like the vacuum cleaner, some of these things (like the vacuum cleaner) will have had a fairly big impact on housecleaning.

Also edit summaries like " Added section “Paper” and its references, since paper towels are involved in cleaning and it will help lengthen the article" are really concerning, this shouldn't be a dumping ground for everything vaguely related, as above if there is a significant historical impact on housecleaning caused by paper towels that should be here, a general history of paper towels no. And the "help to lengthen" the article part is missing the point, the article should be concise, we shouldn't be trying to lengthen it for the sake of it, it should be the right length for the sourced material, no longer and no shorter. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 07:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]