![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
After watching over this list for a while, it's been made pretty clear that this list is in dire need of cleanup; most of the entries are INCREDIBLY arbitrary, likely, as I'd guess, all put up by people trying to simply put whatever local "big project" happens to be underway nearby. Really, this needs perhaps some more stringent criteria, so I'll propose some things to consider when evaluating a project to determine whether or not it might be a megaproject:
I think that it might be prudent that all future additions should come with an argument, at least in the edit description, (a talk page post would be better) arguing on merits similar to these as to why the project qualifies as a megaproject. Meanwhile, I'll be applying these criteria and review some of the existing entries; if I get the time, I'll review all of them, and post my own arguments as for why or why not they should remain on the list. Of course, I'd welcome every single bit of constructive feedback and help. Nottheking ( talk) 03:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Surely the Concorde project, which NASA scientist regard as being a greater technical feat than the Apollo missions, meets the criteria?
I there's no source for either of these things. I don't doubt that the former exists but if it is a "megaproject" worthy of note shouldn't there be an article on it. And the secret underground base?? There's nothing about it in the airport article. Is there any credibility to this at all?
Egads. There's probably some good content buried in the last few sections, screaming to fight its way out, but right now it's just overwhelmed by all the original-research-ish sociology hogwash ("utopian frictionlessness"!?). Jpatokal 12:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
If there was a copyright issue, it is now solved. -- Gsaup 11:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
What would you consider evidence? And what is the copyright problem in this case, exactly? -- Gsaup 15:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
An email of the type requested with a permission as requested has now been sent to permissions at wikimedia dot org. Thanks for your help. -- Gsaup 16:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
what about The International Space Station, or the Apollo Project as examples?
I added the Jubilee line extension as an example of a megaproject. It was then removed as "vandalism". However it clearly meets the definition of a megaproject so I can see no reason that it could be considered vandalism. I am therefore putting it back in the article. If anyone thinks that it should not be there could they explain why in the talk page rather than simply deleting it? -- 83.216.157.38 12:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Is Apollo Program a megaproject? Is Trans-Siberian railway megaproject? Is Internet megaproject? Why the number of entries in the list is so limited and such major projects not included?-- Planemo 17:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I fail to understand why the Vision Tower and North-South Bypass Tunnel in Brisbane are on this list of Megaprojects. There are many other tunnels and buildings being built in Australia that are of similar scale, but are not on this list. Furthermore, the impacts of these two projects on (Australian) society are small comapred to those of Parliament House and particulary the Snowy River Scheme, let alone the other megaprojects listed from around the world. I suggest that these Brisbane projects, though significant, are relatively small and certainly do not fit into this category. They should be removed from this list.The Purple Nazz 10:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Does the genocidal "demolition" of a city really constitute a megaproject? Unlike most every other item on this article, the destructiion of Tenochtilan was undertaken in the spirit of destruction and plunder, not creation. The artificial islands used for farming around the city of Tenochtilan, on the other hand, definitely merit consideration for the status of megaproject. Starsword333 ( talk) 03:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Would the €35 Billion transport 21 investment in Ireland's transport system count as a mega project. ?
The M6 toll? You've got to be kidding me! 26 miles of 3 lane highway does not a megaproject make. It's not even particularly big for a road in the midlands. Come off it. Deleted, if someone thinks otherwise, please let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.152.138 ( talk) 12:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
There are numerous megaprojects stubs, lists and sublists on Wikipedia; it appears to me that these need to be rolled together and cleaned up. As mentioned above, they also probably need to be pared down; a reasonable criterion might be requiring a reliable source to have referred to the project in question as a megaproject. Jminthorne ( talk) 06:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
This article looks like a list article to me (with the exception of the megaproject paradox section at the bottom). I propose splitting the "list-y" majority of the article into a new article, List of megaprojects, so we can begin applying a standard criterion to inclusion of projects to the list and compiling all the scattered lists that are on wiki already. The remaining prose material on this page could then be expanded to an encyclopedic article about megaprojects in general (with a also link to the list of course). Jminthorne ( talk) 06:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
The examples turned from a few representative examples into a (long) list of megaprojects, so I split it off into List of megaprojects so this article can focus on what a megaproject is and how they are created. RJFJR ( talk) 17:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm confused. How does optimism bias deserve a mention in the See also section? Are we saying that megaprojects are by definition susceptible to optimism bias? I'm removing the link, its placing in the article seems awfully POV. TomorrowTime ( talk) 12:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
From a newspaper guy, the first two paragraphs of this story strike a consistently anti-megaproject tone. Not to say that any of the assertions are untrue, it's just that this reads like a college term paper on the economic downsides of huge public works projects.
The intro graf comments on optimism bias and strategic misrepresentation are placed to high in this article, and should be included in their own section. The "curious paradox" is opinionated. If included at all, it should be lower in the story. In addition, the parenthetical comments at the top of the second graf should be removed. They are unprofessional and imply bias.
A simple cut and paste reorganization would go a long way toward removing the appearance of bias from this article. I think the entire second graf needs to be sanitized, but I don't want to argue with whoever wrote it.
Here's a reorganization proposal:
A megaproject is an ... expensive, and public.
(Cut 3rd sentence move to below)
(Cut 2nd paragraph move to below)
Megaprojects include ... transportation projects.
Investing in megaprojects in order to stimulate .... Act of 2009.
(***New Section: "Criticism"***)
(Insert third sentence) Care in the project development ... and schedule forecasts.
(Insert second paragraph here.) The logic on which many of the typical ...
→I agree with the above. As a casual reader, I found this article completely unhelpful, as its bias was clear to me immediately. It seems to have been edited by some of the authors cited for anti-megaproject articles, so I have added a COI warning to the page. I do not know enough to edit the page fully, but anybody can see the COI and bias.
→ 199.107.16.121 ( talk) 20:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
There are no other programs designed to evaluate large, complex and long-term plans, like RiskAoA. Or maybe there are, let's talk. GESICC ( talk) 22:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Wow, just wow. This is jam-packed with OR and essentially boils down to criticism. Especially egregious is:
This article is in desperate need of a full rewrite, as from what I (a reader who doesn't know anything about engineering) can tell, this appears to just be a regurgitation of Flyvberg's views. A History section would be especially welcome - when did civilisation progress enough for megaprojects to be considered? Could the Pyramids of Giza be considered megaprojects? The Sagrada Familia?
Couruu ( talk) 13:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
After watching over this list for a while, it's been made pretty clear that this list is in dire need of cleanup; most of the entries are INCREDIBLY arbitrary, likely, as I'd guess, all put up by people trying to simply put whatever local "big project" happens to be underway nearby. Really, this needs perhaps some more stringent criteria, so I'll propose some things to consider when evaluating a project to determine whether or not it might be a megaproject:
I think that it might be prudent that all future additions should come with an argument, at least in the edit description, (a talk page post would be better) arguing on merits similar to these as to why the project qualifies as a megaproject. Meanwhile, I'll be applying these criteria and review some of the existing entries; if I get the time, I'll review all of them, and post my own arguments as for why or why not they should remain on the list. Of course, I'd welcome every single bit of constructive feedback and help. Nottheking ( talk) 03:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Surely the Concorde project, which NASA scientist regard as being a greater technical feat than the Apollo missions, meets the criteria?
I there's no source for either of these things. I don't doubt that the former exists but if it is a "megaproject" worthy of note shouldn't there be an article on it. And the secret underground base?? There's nothing about it in the airport article. Is there any credibility to this at all?
Egads. There's probably some good content buried in the last few sections, screaming to fight its way out, but right now it's just overwhelmed by all the original-research-ish sociology hogwash ("utopian frictionlessness"!?). Jpatokal 12:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
If there was a copyright issue, it is now solved. -- Gsaup 11:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
What would you consider evidence? And what is the copyright problem in this case, exactly? -- Gsaup 15:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
An email of the type requested with a permission as requested has now been sent to permissions at wikimedia dot org. Thanks for your help. -- Gsaup 16:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
what about The International Space Station, or the Apollo Project as examples?
I added the Jubilee line extension as an example of a megaproject. It was then removed as "vandalism". However it clearly meets the definition of a megaproject so I can see no reason that it could be considered vandalism. I am therefore putting it back in the article. If anyone thinks that it should not be there could they explain why in the talk page rather than simply deleting it? -- 83.216.157.38 12:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Is Apollo Program a megaproject? Is Trans-Siberian railway megaproject? Is Internet megaproject? Why the number of entries in the list is so limited and such major projects not included?-- Planemo 17:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I fail to understand why the Vision Tower and North-South Bypass Tunnel in Brisbane are on this list of Megaprojects. There are many other tunnels and buildings being built in Australia that are of similar scale, but are not on this list. Furthermore, the impacts of these two projects on (Australian) society are small comapred to those of Parliament House and particulary the Snowy River Scheme, let alone the other megaprojects listed from around the world. I suggest that these Brisbane projects, though significant, are relatively small and certainly do not fit into this category. They should be removed from this list.The Purple Nazz 10:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Does the genocidal "demolition" of a city really constitute a megaproject? Unlike most every other item on this article, the destructiion of Tenochtilan was undertaken in the spirit of destruction and plunder, not creation. The artificial islands used for farming around the city of Tenochtilan, on the other hand, definitely merit consideration for the status of megaproject. Starsword333 ( talk) 03:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Would the €35 Billion transport 21 investment in Ireland's transport system count as a mega project. ?
The M6 toll? You've got to be kidding me! 26 miles of 3 lane highway does not a megaproject make. It's not even particularly big for a road in the midlands. Come off it. Deleted, if someone thinks otherwise, please let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.152.138 ( talk) 12:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
There are numerous megaprojects stubs, lists and sublists on Wikipedia; it appears to me that these need to be rolled together and cleaned up. As mentioned above, they also probably need to be pared down; a reasonable criterion might be requiring a reliable source to have referred to the project in question as a megaproject. Jminthorne ( talk) 06:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
This article looks like a list article to me (with the exception of the megaproject paradox section at the bottom). I propose splitting the "list-y" majority of the article into a new article, List of megaprojects, so we can begin applying a standard criterion to inclusion of projects to the list and compiling all the scattered lists that are on wiki already. The remaining prose material on this page could then be expanded to an encyclopedic article about megaprojects in general (with a also link to the list of course). Jminthorne ( talk) 06:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
The examples turned from a few representative examples into a (long) list of megaprojects, so I split it off into List of megaprojects so this article can focus on what a megaproject is and how they are created. RJFJR ( talk) 17:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm confused. How does optimism bias deserve a mention in the See also section? Are we saying that megaprojects are by definition susceptible to optimism bias? I'm removing the link, its placing in the article seems awfully POV. TomorrowTime ( talk) 12:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
From a newspaper guy, the first two paragraphs of this story strike a consistently anti-megaproject tone. Not to say that any of the assertions are untrue, it's just that this reads like a college term paper on the economic downsides of huge public works projects.
The intro graf comments on optimism bias and strategic misrepresentation are placed to high in this article, and should be included in their own section. The "curious paradox" is opinionated. If included at all, it should be lower in the story. In addition, the parenthetical comments at the top of the second graf should be removed. They are unprofessional and imply bias.
A simple cut and paste reorganization would go a long way toward removing the appearance of bias from this article. I think the entire second graf needs to be sanitized, but I don't want to argue with whoever wrote it.
Here's a reorganization proposal:
A megaproject is an ... expensive, and public.
(Cut 3rd sentence move to below)
(Cut 2nd paragraph move to below)
Megaprojects include ... transportation projects.
Investing in megaprojects in order to stimulate .... Act of 2009.
(***New Section: "Criticism"***)
(Insert third sentence) Care in the project development ... and schedule forecasts.
(Insert second paragraph here.) The logic on which many of the typical ...
→I agree with the above. As a casual reader, I found this article completely unhelpful, as its bias was clear to me immediately. It seems to have been edited by some of the authors cited for anti-megaproject articles, so I have added a COI warning to the page. I do not know enough to edit the page fully, but anybody can see the COI and bias.
→ 199.107.16.121 ( talk) 20:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
There are no other programs designed to evaluate large, complex and long-term plans, like RiskAoA. Or maybe there are, let's talk. GESICC ( talk) 22:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Wow, just wow. This is jam-packed with OR and essentially boils down to criticism. Especially egregious is:
This article is in desperate need of a full rewrite, as from what I (a reader who doesn't know anything about engineering) can tell, this appears to just be a regurgitation of Flyvberg's views. A History section would be especially welcome - when did civilisation progress enough for megaprojects to be considered? Could the Pyramids of Giza be considered megaprojects? The Sagrada Familia?
Couruu ( talk) 13:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)