 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
"The transition between these models, and certain aspects of operation of the new company, caused controversy in its initial period of operation."
It's bizarre to refer to controversy in the "initial period of operation" in 2016 of something that dates from 2015, and is currently controversial. It's a POV prediction of a future in which it isn't controversial, which hasn't happened yet. It would be better to delete that mention entirely, and replace it with a section on the controversies at the end - which the article entirely lacks. I'm not qualified to write it, and I don't want to delete the only mention that there is controversy, but the line implies future knowledge that this is just a temporary situation. 162.201.138.94 (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We have seen (in the UK) how NI's water failed after the 2010 white Christmas, just as I have where I live in England (cold weather bust my mains supply, guess who has to pay...)
Assuming the weather does not know about borders I would guess (but living in England never know) that Ireland suffered the same weather; Did the mains burst or had they spent some money fixing the problem before hand?
--81.109.247.189 (talk) 23:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On 29 Dec 2014, I added a "Lead rewrite" template. The lead/intro guideline suggests that an intro should "define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight". While a definition in this case isn't strictly relevant, some context is missing, and I don't see that the current lead provides a summary of the article body and topic. (Instead we seem to jump straight into, what reads to me, like a summary of why water charges were/are needed, with no history or context - and seemingly tonal/POV/weight issues as a result). Previous versions of the intro, while out of date obviously, appeared to be closer to guidelines in terms of definition/summary/context/weight. Any thoughts before I take a look at reworking slightly? Guliolopez (talk) 10:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done Finally got around to this. The intro now (IMO) reads better, is more in line with guidelines and doesn't have the same "out of date" issues as previously. This article still suffers in a few areas however (the infobox is "home-made" and doesn't indicate sources, and several sections/sub-sections are significantly out of date). Depending on feedback on the intro changes, I may take a look at these other issues.Guliolopez (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Water supply and sanitation in the Republic of Ireland. 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:
{{dead link}} tag to http://www.finegael.ie/news/index.cfm/type/details/nkey/24706When 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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
