Template:Vital article
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To-do list for Noise pollution:
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 11 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Paul1204 (article contribs).
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2019 and 1 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Herrmaac.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2019 and 26 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Malcolmka. Peer reviewers: Sallie.croissant.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I did the clarity edit. I did it without discussing, even though I prefer to in most cases. It is quite a few edits. I did not change the content of the page. Only adresses technical issues like "This stategy has had noticeable improvement on urban sound levels." A stategy cannot posses improvement unless it is the object being improved. Mistakes like these are understandable, as plentiful as they are. They get looked right over at first but they make it hard for a reader to keep track of what is being talked about. That is why wikipedia articals are hard to read, not because of big words. Please, someone cheak my changes once and then write "verified" under my text, so we don't get in an edit war over clarity.
"The overarching cause of most noise worldwide is generated by transportation systems, principally ... but also ..." Do these generate the cause, or the noise its self, which. I tried to fix it by I can't figure out how to do it without removing overarching. I figured someone would not like it without. I think it is fine without.
"Most noise worldwide is generated by transportation systems, principally..." It is factual and a clear lead-in to the paragraph, agreed?
p.s. This artical is pov. I didn't change it though.
This article seems rather POV and narrowly focused on military sonar damage to marine mammals. What about undersea geological/archeological prospecting, fishing sonar, boat propeller noise? What about noise pollution effect on humans? Noise pollution countermeasures? Etc. etc. Jorge Stolfi 22:28, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thats one reason why this article should be elimanated and merged with Noise pollutionAnlace 21:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Why does this story begin in the 1980s, as if that were a baseline? Better to place car stereos in context. Writer notes that car stereos are a problem for setting off car alarms: aren't they both a noise pollution problem? 12 May 2005
I suggest this page be merged with Noise (environmental), against the suggestion that that page be merged with this one brought up at Talk:Noise (environmental)#Environmental noise should be merged with Noise pollution. Hyacinth 11:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
reference to the band should be deleted as notability hasnt been establishedAnlace 15:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
It is a disambiguation note. Any qualms about notability of the band should be taken up on the relevant page, which is not this one. Kilbosh 15:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.229.160 (talk) 01:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Whats this ear doing ere? Does it serve any purpose?--Light current 05:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah but everyone know what an ear looks like! So its just window dressing is it?--Light current 05:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, you wont mind if I remove it then!--Light current 07:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
There is no desirabilty to have a picture of an airplane under the aircraft noise article or a picture of a bicycle under the bicycle article, etc. unless it provides information that is additional to the text. I like photos and diagrams that illustrate a point and convey some information: like 'what does this thingummy look like' or 'how does this thing work'. Everyone nose what an ear looks like (unless they are blind in which case it doesnt matter). THe picture inclusion is purely gratuitous and unneccessary in this article. ,You, We might as well show a pic of someones brain as the ultimate processor of the sound!--Light current 17:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Image does not contain any information. Therefore it is wasting space!--Light current 17:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah. And while were at it, what the hell has a diagram of a human heart to do with anything?. This is another pic that conveys no info with regard to the article. I propose it is removed also!--Light current 17:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Show the damage it causes or the precautions necessary to prevent damage!--Light current 20:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
What we want is a pic of a noisy vehicle, object. machine with a person with his fingers in his ears of with a pair of muffs on! Actually, that gives me an idea. Use the mandatory 'ear protection must be worn' sign!! and say what it is. Then we have an image with a purpose!--Light current 20:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Did not convey any idea of what the problem is Im afraid! Just looks like any old car!--Light current 23:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I suggrested a noisy vehicle or m/c with someone wearing earmuffs to protect their hearing. like this [1] --Light current 16:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I removed pic of ear as it contains no information pertinent to the article--Light current 16:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I removed pic of car as it contains no information pertinent to the article--Light current 16:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I removed pic of heart as it contains no information pertinent to the article--Light current 16:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
No- I included one that someone else had chosen of being worthy of inclusion in an article. ( A differnt article but a pic more suitable for this article than those I removed)--Light current 16:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
My actions are serious and are not intended to be ridiculed.--Light current 16:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
And if you are not on the level then what other motive but vandalism can one attribute to your actions? Hmm, trolling maybe? -Onceler 00:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Please remain calm. Also please be careful about accusations and if you are accusing me of something, please use the correct words. Accusations of trolling are extremely offensive on WP and I would ask you to back up such a statement with evidence or withdraw it. I believe I am acting in the best interests of the articles and WP in removing irrelevant and unhelpful items. If you reread my previous posts youll see this is the case. Also please refrain from personal attacks and keep comments related to the articles in question . Thanks. --Light current 01:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude or offensive messages designed to annoy and antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion (see Anonymous Internet posting). Most online discussion groups are open (especially Usenet) therefore the self-described members have no more right than anyone else to be there. It is tribalistic types (often depraved) who claim that a group is their turf. Unsurprisingly, "troll" very often simply means "newcomer" or a person who says something someone else doesn't like. You can say "the sky is blue" and yet be accused of being a troll.
Please spell out exactly where I fit into this definition. Is it the first or the second bolded section? I will admit to the 2nd defn but I still reject the term. Perhaps you can then find a new word. God knows there are enough to choose from on my page. Troll is not one of them and is generally accepted to be offensive language on WP. I would therfore ask you once more to withdraw your use of the term against me.--Light current 15:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Anlace
Onceler I ask you yet again to withdraw your inaccurate accusations. --Light current 17:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
There are 4 useless pictures on this page. Would anyone like to discuss getting rid of them ?--Light current 02:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I intend to remove the image of the heart (as I feel it provides zero information with regard to the article) unless its retention can be justified. I will wait a decent time for other comments before taking action.--Light current 16:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Done!--Light current 23:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I intend to remove the image of the airplane (as I feel it provides zero information with regard to the article) unless its retention can be justified. I will wait a decent time for other comments before taking action.--Light current 20:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Done!--Light current 23:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I intend to remove the image of the ear (as I feel it provides zero information with regard to the article) unless its retention can be justified. I will wait a decent time for other comments before taking action.--Light current 20:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Done!--Light current 23:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I intend to remove the image of the car (as I feel it provides zero information with regard to the article) unless its retention can be justified. I will wait a decent time for other comments before taking action. Tick- tick--Light current 20:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Done! but saved useful text.--Light current 00:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
What purpose exactly does the picture of a persons pinna actually add to the article?--Light current 17:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I intend to remove the image of the airplane (as I feel it provides zero information with regard to the article) unless its retention can be justified. I will wait a decent time for other comments before taking action.--Light current 23:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
i presume this photo insertion is meant to be a joke. it is a cruel one, since this type of iconic representation was used in the 1960s before the seriousness and point of responsibility of environmental noise was well understood. Present thinking places the responsibility of noise control for environmental noise on transportation planners and vehicle manufacturers, not on the individual to wear protective hearing. this image could arguably pertain to industrial hygiene. i would vote for removal of this image and will wait for two weeks to hear from others. Anlace 16:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
i think the main point is still eluding you. people should not be required to wear ear protection to protect themselves from roadway or aircraft noise. you should really check out the occupational hygiene article if you want a good place for your earplugs photo. it has no photos.Anlace 00:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
see discussion below under ==personal protection==. for example i have read over 200 Noise Elements of the General Plan for municpalities and counties throughout the USA. These documents are official public policy and set forth a wide array of noise mitigation strategies. In not one of them can i recall a reference to personal protection. In the field of environmental noise it is simply not a concept. if the noise is industrial thats a different matter and why i have stated it would be a suitable image topic for occupational hygiene, which article is devoid of images. if the noise is self inflicted then that is not a topic of environmental noise either. Anlace 21:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Im still astounded that the primary cause of deafness in the US is road noise. Is that actually what you are saying? --Light current 23:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
How much noise world wide does thunder create? Is it greater or less than cars? And what about wind, volcanoes, earthquakes, loud music etc, etc?--Light current 23:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
this material is not appropriate for the noise pollution article, which addresses environmental noise. this content should be moved to occupational hygiene or a similar industrial exposure page, where ear protection is sometimes used. Can you think of one governmental agency who has recommended people wear earplugs in their homes exposed to aircraft or roadway noise. i have attended seveal hundred public hearings (implying testimony by over 3000 persons} on environmental noise. i can think of only five persons (all representing noise polluters) who even mentioned the use of earplugs. In each instance the person testifying was boo-ed vehemently (not a polite response but a poll of public opinion nonetheless). in the interest of fair play lets leave this material up for a couple of weeks and hear what others have to say Anlace 00:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Two common forms of protection against noise are earplugs and earmuffs. These are available in a range of applications, effectiveness and quality. Unfortunately, these two methods of HPD (Hearing protection Devices) provide less than 20% of the human body needs. In fact, using these HPD can cause, in course of time, a permanent damage, and the best evidence is that although hundreds of HPD are available in the market reports clearly show that noise damages the hearing of millions around the world: Noise is the most common occupational disease and the second most self-reported occupational injury! (According to the National Campaign for Hearing Health). Noise is the major cause for Tinnitus, Vertigo, Jet Leg and other psychosomatic diseases (even a specific type of cancer was found as caused by noise). Noise disables communication and none of us can conduct a phone conversation in a noisy environment. Governments pay billions for lost of production and social security lost income. Noise is considered to be one of the worst environmental pollution worldwide. Its impact on the comfort and health in modern life is significant (White paper European transport policy for 2010).http://cordis.europa.eu/eoi/dsp_details.cfm?ID=34072 The problems of the current existing HPDs are well known to the modern science and include: 1. All of them seal the ear, or do not allow the minimal ventilation required to the ear. Since the human ears must remain open and ventilated, any attempt to seal the ear canal causes bio chemical, physiological reactions that affect the human body. Needles to mention that in this situation the user can not communicate normally. 2. Due to the first fact, current HPD are not comfortable for long use at all. It is know that HPD are difficult to adopt by users. Users often complain that HPD itches and warms the ear. 3. None of the existing HPDs block the ELF, (extremely Low frequencies), or infrasound. These are know as the most dangerous frequencies and yet, no solution for this risk. 4. No prevention of medical conditions caused by noise and transferred to body through the ears. Tinnitus, Vertigo, Jet Leg and other psychosomatic diseases can not be prevented using any of the HPD. 5. No protection from air pressure changes & shock waves. 6. Bone conduction noise transmission is not blocked by HPD. 7. NRR (or SNR) limitation. This measurement provides a limited protection in specific range of frequencies in which the HPD attenuates between 10 to 30 dB (as tested in labs only). No attenuation for all frequencies and no solution for those who are exposed to dangerous noise (In these case even attenuation of 30 dB will leave the user unprotected).
It seems that what current HPDs offer is based on a "No Theory". Even the electronic earmuffs do not provide the needed protection (The external ear is analog therefore any electronic attempt to block noise misses the target by definition).
The above mentioned leads to the conclusion that science lacks the theories that enable full protection to the auditory system In oppose to the ears that have today full protection by all kind of devices, or the respiratory system or the head itself, ear and hearing protection is still not achieved.
Industrial PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) companies invest millions in R&D hoping to find a cure to this hazard; the Academic world provides many articles emphasizing the urgent need for such a solution while demonstrating the magnitude of the phenomena. It was only in University of Salford, UK (located next to Manchester) where a Swiss - Israeli scientist called Adam Aloofi demonstrated a unique device that really does the work. Members of the Noise Lab in the university claim that his solution is based on a bio acoustical theory that provides a full protection to the auditory system. The device specifications and theory were never exposed to the public and will be available to all once the Professor's research is over.
I have always believed that the high frequencies were more damaging to hearing than lower ones (at the same SPL). Is that correct?--Light current 23:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Hearing damage during short term from 120 dB up. (from SPL page)--Light current 02:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
this template on pollution in general is not very helpful and in fact distracting to most readers seeking information on noise pollution. if we have a template at all here, it should include such things as Roadway noise, Aircraft noise, Noise mitigation, Noise health effects, Noise regulation, etc. what do others think? Anlace 18:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The statement: ""Hybrid vehicles are the first innovation within the last 100 years to achieve significant widespread noise source reduction"" seems a little odd to me. My thoguht is that apart from busses and other large diesel powered vehicles, most of the noise from modern cars, vans and the like does not comes from engines, but tyres and the air rushing over them. A hybrid car still has tyres.... in fact they still use internal combustion engines, so I would doubt that there would be any real environmental noise reduction attributable to hybrid or even fully electric cars. tommylommykins 09:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I would concur with that. The statement should be removed.
tommylommykins is half right - much of the appreciable noise from any vehicle is airflow, and depending on road surface also tyre roar. Hybrid cars have efficiency-biased tyres, so they may even be louder in some cases.
HOWEVER, the original statement is foolishly biased and obviously so - almost without exception a hybrid car only ever runs on full-electric at a standstill or up to low speed only. It's an idiotic statement & a registered user should remove it without hesitation. - Noise from passenger automobiles is almost entirely generated by engine noise below approx 20-30 mph. Above that, it's a mix of engine noise and tire noise, and at higher speeds, tire noise and aerodynamic noise takes over. The TNM Technical Manual has more info. It is entirely possible that at city speeds the hybrid vehicles could be quiet enough to be buried in the background noise. Anechoic Man 01:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
At least that is all I can figure by this opening statement "Noise pollution (or environmental noise in technical venues) is displeasing human or machine created sound that disrupts the environment". Only humans and machines can make noise pollution, so if your house is full of squealing pigs, that is not actually noise pollution. So either animals are not capable of producing noise pollution, or the opening statement is incorrect JayKeaton 16:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Noisefighter, I've reverted my deletion of your link, but I've taken out the (shouted) capitalization of your organization's name. Your org looks very similar to a couple of others that are linked; I don't know why I didn't notice this before. Maybe I was blinded by the ALL CAPS. :P You should know that I'm very much against casual overuse/abuse of car horns, especially in these two areas: car alarm ON/OFF signalling and residential neighborhood pickup of passengers by lazy drivers. I hate unwarranted urban noise as much or more than anybody I know. Binksternet 08:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure this is a relevant topic to bring up, but that the paragraph in question takes up almost an entire screen before the table of contents with no sourcing is something of concern to me. I'm sorry that I don't have the resources to deal with this myself, can anyone else look into it? 170.140.70.195 (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
[['i think sound levels greater than 130db can cause piain and perfanent ear damage.even sounds og about 80db cause damage if you are exposed to them for a lonf period of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.63.182 (talk) 08:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know the effect of noise pollution? I would think it makes people unsettled, fidgety, or annoyed. And, is the noise pollution level higher in cities that small towns with less cars going by? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.25.42.40 (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Your capablity of ignoring is limited. There are so many words in English for the same procedure: apprehend, descry, discern, experience, observe, spot, watch ... It all depends on the state of your mind, that you are in.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.109.168 (talk) 00:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
"One of the best known cases of damage caused by noise pollution is the death of certain species of beached whales, brought on by the loud sound of military sonar"
This sentence is surely just a little POV. A teensy bit biased? Poorly written too as it does not explain the mechanism by which the whales died. It can be taken as the whales being killed directly by the sonars' effect.
As I recall the allegation was that the whales natural navigation could be confused by naval sonar, so causing them to swim onto beaches, so become stranded, often resulting in death from 'exposure' or asphyxiation.
The "San Juan Islander" in my POV sounds like it may be just a bit less reliable a source than a major newpaper. Or an academic/scientific report. One document they cite headlined "Navy sonar affected whales" [2]is not accessible on the link given. Though they also say "No permanent damage was done to the whale's hearing, according to the report." This document is available,"Sonar and Marine Mammals Fact Sheet"Dating from April 2006.
Under "US Navy Sonar blasts Pacific Northwest killer whales". the 'evidence' directly cited is a press release from Ken Balcomb of the "Center for Whale Research". He uses 'NPOV' terms such as "terrorized whales". Refers to the US Navy as "most egregious of marine mammal harassers and killers worldwide". Then "Since March 2000,....the Navy has known that their sonar kills and injures whales.... " and "In just this one day....the Navy’s lethal sonar adversely impacted every marine mammal within twenty miles of the ship. ..."
Reference should be made to the Marine_mammals_and_sonar article, which has many more references, though it doesn't have anything on actual deaths. It does have lists of "Naval Sonar Linked Incidents", strandings correlated with military naval exercises.
This, [3],links to a search on the NOAA website for Sonar related documents, such as these:
Why not use a real simple example likes dogs freaking out from fireworks? --220.101.28.25 (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
It is absolutely wrong that noise pollution is only from outside noise! --Fmrauch (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Try and work out the meanings of the verbs "effect" and "affect", which you obviously don't know - "impact" is not a satisfactory heal-all, as is shown here by ships impacting on crustaceans - it sounds as if the ships actually collide with the sea creatures! Maelli (talk) 12:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Neither the cause nor the vistims of noise should be singuralized. Noise can be defined as the absence of music. I define music as the absence of patterns.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.109.168 (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
The article currently explains that "Sound becomes unwanted when it either interferes with normal activities such as irritation from vehicles horns, sleep, conversation, or disrupts or diminishes one's quality of life." Well, vehicle horns, sirens, backup beepers, and other alarms often cross from "irritation" to "incapacitation." Noise can incapacitate either through pain (in hyperacusis, or sometimes in loudness recruitment) or through its effects on the senses of balance and direction (in Meniere's disease). 173.66.5.216 (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
This article Noise Pollution includes a lot of relevant information on the adverse health effects from noise pollution and some good information on laws and regulations. The article only explains what noise pollution is with brief information in the introduction. I would like to add a whole section that talks about different aspects of noise pollution (low frequency and high frequency, different sources) and how loud it must be to be considered noise pollution. I would also like to add a section about measuring noise pollution and ways to counteract it. Below are the sources I would use.
Bibliography
Dzhambov, Angelmario, and Donkadimitrova Dimitrova. “Urban Green Spaces′ Effectiveness as a Psychological Buffer for the Negative Health Impact of Noise Pollution: A Systematic Review.” Noise and Health, vol. 16, no. 70, 2014, p. 157., doi:10.4103/1463-1741.134916.
Kateman, Erik, et al. “Interventions to Prevent Occupational Noise Induced Hearing Loss.” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2007, doi:10.1002/14651858.cd006396.
Maisonneuve, Nicolas et al. “NoiseTube: Measuring and mapping noise pollution with mobile phones.” ITEE (2009).
Maisonneuve, Nicolas, et al. “Participatory Noise Pollution Monitoring Using Mobile Phones.” Information Polity, vol. 15, no. 1,2, 2010, pp. 51–71., doi:10.3233/ip-2010-0200.
Narendra Singh & S. C. Davar (2004) Noise Pollution-Sources, Effects and Control, Journal of Human Ecology, 16:3, 181-187, DOI: 10.1080/09709274.2004.11905735.
Nelson, Deborah Imel, et al. “The Global Burden of Occupational Noise-Induced Hearing Loss.” American Journal of Industrial Medicine, vol. 48, no. 6, 2005, pp. 446–458., doi:10.1002/ajim.20223.
Pawlaczyk-Łuszczyńska, Malgorzata, et al. “Does Low Frequency Noise at Moderate Levels Influence Human Mental Performance?” Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control, vol. 24, no. 1, 2005, pp. 25–42., doi:10.1260/0263092054037711. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolmka (talk • contribs) 00:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Peer Review: 1. The entire article is already very detailed and well organized and written. A couple of sentences were reworded which will help with the flow of the content in certain areas. Adding more information to the sentence about autism and how noise pollution can affect was very informative. The sentence before left an empty thought, so adding more information and connecting autism with noise pollution was very interesting. Also in this statement more citations were added to back up the information that was provided. The paragraph at the beginning talking about how noise pollution affects not only humans, but also animals and the ways it does so helped me to understand what noise pollution is and its effects on life. More citations were also added which is always good to have a wide variety of sources to back up the information that is provided. 2. Something that could be considered making changes on is the section on legal status. There is information on India, the United Kingdom, and the United States. While this information is very helpful, trying to wrap it up in a conclusive world view would be good. It would help to understand why only looking at those three countries were talked about when noise pollution is most likely apparent not only in those countries, but all across the world. Readers may not understand the whole world perspective with only a few countries and may misunderstand the wide impact of noise pollution. 3. Information regarding what has been done currently or what is being looked into to contain/reduce noise pollution may be important for this article. There is a lot of information about laws, studies, etc. that have been done years ago, but having more up to date information would be important to add. This would give readers the confidence that the information is up to date on what is being done. 4. Throughout the article it talks about how loud the noise pollution can be so talking about hearing protection or adding a link to the list of additional resources at the bottom would be good. This would correlate my topic of hearing protection with noise pollution. Sallie.croissant (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
DOI 10.1007/s00442-017-3862-z CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:32, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi -
I was wondering if it would be useful to add in information on how noise is measured (noise assessment) as well as the different metrics captured, particularly for transportation-related noise. I feel like this is important given that we cannot assess the health effects without understanding how our exposure is measured.
Stephanie.Grady (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Lead Section
I think that the first sentence does a nice job of summing up the topic as a whole, but not the article itself. So much of the article is dedicated to how noise pollution impacts health and specifically invertebrates/ocean life, which is not touched upon until the third paragraph. I think the lead section dedicates too much content to research on noise pollution in regards to marine life, and I think this article could flow better if that section was moved to the content area. It seems too detailed to be in the lead section and the main point could instead just be given in a sentence or two.
Content
The content appears to be relevant to the topic of noise pollution and up to date. The noise control section seems like it could be added to, as it is very short compared to the rest of the sections. There are large sections of the article dedicated to how noise pollution impacts communication, development, and ecosystems but mainly seems to focus on invertebrates/ocean life and could benefit from having how humans are impacted by these areas added to those sections as well.
Tone and Balance
The article appears to be mostly neutral, but at times feels biased against the topic of noise pollution overall. The article seems to be focused on the negative impacts of noise pollution, and not the neutral impacts or the some of the other reasons behind noise pollution. The viewpoint of it having a negative impact on marine life I think is overrepresented and could be cut down to be more concise to make room for how it impacts human society and culture.
Sources and References
The sources all appear to be credible, the links work, and are current. However there are a lot more sources on the "concrete" information on noise pollution (data, scientific research, health guidelines, etc.) than there are on more "abstract" information and theory. For instance there are only 2 sources in this category and both are dedicated to Schafer out of almost 100 sources total. This section needs improvement on reflecting the available literature on the topic of noise pollution.
Organization and Writing Quality
The writing quality of this article is good. There were no noticeable grammar mistakes and the writing had an academic tone while still being easy to understand. The organization however could use some improvement. Once again I feel there was too much dedicated to the impacts of noise pollution on marine life and not enough on humans/society and these topics need to be balanced. There was also too much detail on the impacts on marine life in the introductory paragraphs that could be saved for the content area.
Images and Media
The images and media used in this article did a good job of demonstrating what was being explained in the article and appear to be cited correctly. They were also well-captioned to the point that they could stand alone even without the context of the article and were laid out in a visually appealing manner.
Talk Page Discussion
The talk page seemed to suggest a lot of the edits that I suggested in my review. There is a section dedicated to clarity edits and multiple sections dedicated to deleting information that strays too far from the main topic of the article. There was also a push for less emphasis on the impact noise pollution had on marine life and more on humans, which I still feel is lacking. There are also a number of edits that work to make the article more neutral and makes sure it backs up any blanket statements made in the text. The article has been rated as C-class in most categories but in the medicine WikiProject it was rated as Start-class. It is a part of a number of WikiProjects, including Engineering, Professional sound production, Physics/Fluid Dynamics/Acoustics, Environment, Medicine, and South Africa/PSP SA. It is different from how we have discussed noise pollution in class in that it focuses more on the biological effects on marine life for instance, than the theory and more abstract ideas behind noise pollution.
Overall Impressions
Overall, the article feels a bit on the under-developed side in terms of encompassing the entire idea of noise pollution. I think there is a lot of room to talk about how noise pollution in the context we have been discussing it in class. The article's strengths are definitely in the data it presents and the scientific importance. Paul1204 (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Kara Paulsen
PLEASE! make a talk about the above topic... Shashwata Dey Sarkar (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 July 2022 and 16 August 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wl2671 (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Wl2671 (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Noise pollution is very dangerous for the environment and us and animals over a 5.10 million people around the world have died because of noise pollution 197.184.169.28 (talk) 10:17, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Noise pollution 106.207.244.38 (talk) 13:29, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Noise pollution in india — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.105.212.146 (talk) 13:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Hhjb 117.230.36.249 (talk) 13:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
"Other key research in this area can be seen in Fong's comparative analysis of soundscape differences between Bangkok, Thailand and Los Angeles, California, US. Based on Schafer's research....but also demonstrates how different sounds of the soundscape are indicative of class differences in urban environments.". As I couldn't access to the said article by Fong, I just couldn't understand what the paragraph was talking about, can anybody help? Thanks. ThomasYehYeh (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
"Locations where the DNL is above 75 dB are considered "Unacceptable" and require approval by the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development". I'm wondering whant the so called approval is for, can anybody help explain. Thanks. ThomasYehYeh (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1bbng (talk • contribs) 04:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Dhoni Pradushan ko darshate Hue Kisi ek Poster ka Nirman Kijiye tatha dhvni Pradushan ko kam karte hain to do slogan nare bhi likhiye 2409:4043:2E1E:6DD2:0:0:BC9:3605 (talk) 03:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)