Talk:Shit flow diagram
 | A fact from Shit flow diagram appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 12 August 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Refs
[edit]I still need to better format them from bare urls. It's on my list. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- @JackReynoldsADogOwner, thanks a ton. I was going to get around to that but you saved me some work. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Did you know nomination
[edit]- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by The C of E (talk) 15:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- ... that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation supports the creation of shit flow diagrams? Source: https://www.susana.org/en/knowledge-hub/shit-flow-diagrams-sfds-excreta-flow-diagrams
- ALT1:... that the World Bank funded the research that led to the development of shit flow diagrams? Source: https://www.susana.org/en/knowledge-hub/shit-flow-diagrams-sfds-excreta-flow-diagrams
Created by ScottishFinnishRadish (talk). Self-nominated at 19:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: None required. |
Article is new enough, long enough, good sources and no copyvio came up on Earwig (excluding false positives like quotes). Hooks are interested and cited. qpq is not needed since it looks like this is the nominator's first dyk nomination. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)Additional citations
[edit]The number of citations, if 1 or 1,000,000, is not the problem. The lead of the article, which includes the definition of the term, has no source. This is not cited later in the article. There are several statements in the page that are uncited, While there are lists of citations at the end of paragraphs of text, these paragraphs all contain numerous claims that, and it is unclear which source goes towards which claim. The best citation looks to be "Estimating Safely Managed Sanitation in Urban Areas; Lessons Learned From a Global Implementation of Excreta-Flow Diagrams," which could probably address most of the uncited claims.
Most of the citations are to websites. Not to just template and leave the work to others, here are some citations I recommend including to beef up the article.
- "The SuSanA platform and the Shit Flow Diagram – tools to achieve more sustainable sanitation for all", (I'm not familiar with this journal, so don't know if it is the best source. It seems to cover the content needed though.)
- Refining the shit flow diagram using the capacity-building approach – Method and demonstration in a south Indian town", (Journal of Environmental Management is pretty reputable, so this would be a great inclusion.
- "Sanitation sustainability, seasonality and stacking: Improved facilities for how long, where and whom?"(The Geographical Journal is one I'm fairly familiar with, however this article doesn't go into as much detail as the other two. It does mention SFDs at least once though.)
By adding a variety of peer-reviewed sources, especially ones using the phrase "shit flow diagram," you can better establish that this term is notable and widely used in the literature. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- I've duplicated a ref for the lead, and removed the other citation needed template as the citations at the end of the paragraph cover the entire paragraph. An inline citation for every sentence is not necessary. I've also removed the tag again as everything in the article is verified by the sources. Lastly, sources do not need to be in an article to establish notability, they must merely exist. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Bill Gates blockquote seems out of place
[edit]Feels a bit odd just sitting there at the end of the article. I get that it's purpose is to prove that "shit flow diagram" is the real name being used, but it would feel a lot more natual to have it referenced in a paragraph in context rather than a blockquote BugGhost🎤 11:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)