This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 8 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vonderk4.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 22:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
The maps include some area downstream of Lake Ontario along the seaway which is a part of the St. Lawrence watershed but does not drain into the great lakes. I think that this map shows the actual watershed / drainage area: [1]. I added a sentence to soften the given "basin = watershed" definition to reconcile the conflict. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 19:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Great Lakes Basin. 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:
When 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
What is the point of the isolated statement "The influence of these power plants and the waste they produce must be combined to ascertain the impact on the Great Lakes Basin?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExpatSalopian ( talk • contribs) 20:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
gc.ca goes to Canada government website, I might still be correct.-- Mark v1.0 ( talk) 14:38, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
There are many many problems with that massive set of additions. Massive undue weight, NPOV problems. And when a government website has a collection of public comments, that does not mean that the website operator is considered to be the creator or editor of the material. Maybe you can find an article elsewhere more suited for that giant list of nuclear plants. And put in a short npov paragraph about nuclear power plants in the basin. It really can't stay as is. North8000 ( talk) 20:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
I was imagining a compromise of a brief encyclopedic solidly-sourced paragraph. What I actually think is that the article should be limited to simply covering "basin" aspects, not what's in the basin. The latter would include 10's of millions of people, millions of industries, many bodies of water (including the great lakes), lots of land and land uses, ecosystems, an immense amount of human history of what occurred there. All stuff covered in other articles. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 11:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
IMO it's not a matter of importance, it's a matter of what the article is about. Is it about the basin aspect, or what is contained within the basin? IMO it's the former.North8000 ( talk) 17:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 8 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vonderk4.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 22:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
The maps include some area downstream of Lake Ontario along the seaway which is a part of the St. Lawrence watershed but does not drain into the great lakes. I think that this map shows the actual watershed / drainage area: [1]. I added a sentence to soften the given "basin = watershed" definition to reconcile the conflict. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 19:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Great Lakes Basin. 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:
When 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
What is the point of the isolated statement "The influence of these power plants and the waste they produce must be combined to ascertain the impact on the Great Lakes Basin?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExpatSalopian ( talk • contribs) 20:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
gc.ca goes to Canada government website, I might still be correct.-- Mark v1.0 ( talk) 14:38, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
There are many many problems with that massive set of additions. Massive undue weight, NPOV problems. And when a government website has a collection of public comments, that does not mean that the website operator is considered to be the creator or editor of the material. Maybe you can find an article elsewhere more suited for that giant list of nuclear plants. And put in a short npov paragraph about nuclear power plants in the basin. It really can't stay as is. North8000 ( talk) 20:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
I was imagining a compromise of a brief encyclopedic solidly-sourced paragraph. What I actually think is that the article should be limited to simply covering "basin" aspects, not what's in the basin. The latter would include 10's of millions of people, millions of industries, many bodies of water (including the great lakes), lots of land and land uses, ecosystems, an immense amount of human history of what occurred there. All stuff covered in other articles. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 11:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
IMO it's not a matter of importance, it's a matter of what the article is about. Is it about the basin aspect, or what is contained within the basin? IMO it's the former.North8000 ( talk) 17:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)