Talk:Rammed earth
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rammed earth article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
 | This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Bias
editThis article extols the virtues of rammed earth without discussing its drawbacks or unsuitable uses to anything like the same extent. 128.232.228.174 (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I assume you know the concept of a wiki... Xxxmicrobexxx (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
To me this is a very biased article. In addition many biased claims lack citations too. I am adding the NPOV template to this article. --Stinkypie (talk) 08:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Stinkypie: Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOVD which says that 'The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies' Please state which claims are biased or lack citation and for what reasons. If you fail to justify your claim, please remove the tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.91.167.196 (talk) 15:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
If no justification for claims of bias are made by end of February 2009 I will be removing NPOV templates Xxxmicrobexxx (talk) 06:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
xxxmicrobrew, you're late! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.203.233.80 (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
You're right. But done now Xxxmicrobexxx (talk) 10:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
This is quite an engrossing article, I was totally absorbed by the descriptions of rammed earth construction's strength, cheapness and environmentally friendly advantages. However I also say the article is fairly biased too. Particularly, sometimes the article seems to be stating rammed earth with cement combinations are inferior, and also says rammed earth is looked down upon compared to more 'modern' materials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.30.245 (talk) 13:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- The examples of rammed-earth structures are drawn almost entirely from North America and the same goes for the studies cited. I have included a reference to Craterre in the See also list.
Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 13:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
"Edifice"
editWow, whoever wrote/corrected this article sure loved to use the word "edifice." It's like, overused to be honest. Spend some time with a thesaurus, would ya?
Cob
editThe article says cob is a similar material. This may be so but cob construction requires a significantly different technology. All earth construction uses similar materials, so perhaps this qualifier could be modified so that the distinction can be usefully made. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)