Talk:Water damage

Water damage restoration was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 23 July 2016 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Water damage. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Architecture Low‑importance Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Water Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Water, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Water supply-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

NPOV

Currently this covers the US. Strangely, water damage occurs worldwide. Simply south...... 17:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Addition: Adoption of AS-IICRC S500:2025 in Australia

Hi editors,

I’d like to propose a factual addition to the Restoration section of the Water damage article. It introduces recent developments in restoration standards within Australia, based on independent, reliable sources:

---

Proposed Text:

In 2025, Australia adopted the AS-IICRC S500:2025 as the national standard for professional water damage restoration. This version of the standard, developed in collaboration with Standards Australia, the Institute of Inspection, Cleaning and Restoration Certification (IICRC), and RIA Australasia, aims to bring consistency to water damage restoration practices across residential, commercial, and institutional settings. Major insurers, such as Suncorp Group, have endorsed the standard, citing its role in improving claims handling and restoration outcomes.

---

References:

1. https://reztor.com.au/as-iicrc-s500-australia-ria/
2. https://www.insurancenews.com.au/local/water-restoration-standard-sets-new-benchmark-for-claims

I believe this addition would help improve international context and provide readers with relevant updates on evolving industry practices.

Thanks for your consideration!

--Danbrunes (talk) 00:08, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to add Further Reading link

I’d like to propose adding the following entry to the External links section as a “Further reading” resource. It offers up-to-date, practical information not currently covered elsewhere in the article:

Water damage guide.

Detailed data on 2025 cost ranges, health risks, prevention strategies, and a five-stage restoration process aligned with ANSI/IICRC S500. This guide synthesizes authoritative sources (CDC, WHO, Angi, FEMA) into one accessible reference. I believe it would benefit readers looking for a modern, comprehensive overview. I’m happy to discuss placement or wording. Tanish Chopra (talk) 17:52, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source you've suggested is in the business of selling restoration services, and as such, cannot be counted on to be a reliable, neutral source. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:51, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, actually I was using that blog just for ideas since it covers all the 2025 trends. That’s the only reason I referred to it, no other intention. Tanish Chopra (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tanish Chopra: If the blog is using what you consider reliable sources, and if it has content that is relevant to the article, I'd recommend that you update the article, citing the sources that the blog has cited. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:09, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, but there are a few things in that blog that I think only they’ve researched, maybe using their own tools, especially the 2026 insights. That’s why I had to link to it. Right now, there’s no other source confirming it, and since they’re in the same niche, their insights felt more relevant and reliable. Tanish Chopra (talk) 15:32, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tanish Chopra: But they are not, of themselves, a reliable source because they're blog is not subject to any form of editorial review. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:40, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So you mean to say we can’t add a link to their website? Is there any alternative? Tanish Chopra (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tanish Chopra: See if you can find the equivalent information in a reliable source. If the information this blog is posting is reliable, it should be verifiable through reliable sources. If it is not verifiable through reliable sources, perhaps the information is not so good after all. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:50, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I spoke directly with the CEO of this company, Vlad. He confirmed that the information is valid and was measured using their new tool. He also mentioned that he’s in touch with many well-known restorers and personally conducted a survey, which is where the percentages come from. Tanish Chopra (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Vlad feels very highly about his information. But in order for us to consider it a reliable source, it would need to go through some form of independent peer review. He should publish his information in a technical journal if it is so valid and valuable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:43, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]