![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
After giving the article a quick read, I noticed the amount of hearsay evident and the lack of verifiability. Several sources simply say "The Age" Article needs a major re-write to provide a balanced account. Random12347 ( talk) 15:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
The Impact on Environment section fails to provide any sources for the information and contains an opinion piece rather than a factual and well sourced explanation. It needs sources. Random12347 ( talk) 09:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
http://cleantechnica.com/2009/02/22/engineered-osmosis-revolutionizing-saltwater-desalination/
In the early part of the drought there was more annual rainfall compared to the current situation at hand. Thus, along with the water restrictions (that are still in place) the government encouraged Melbourne households to install water tanks. However, over the last few years annual rainfall in the MMA has dropped dramatically and thus water tanks prove to be fruitless for obtaining and using water long-term.
Building other dams in areas where there is some rainfall at present may be very risky (and costly) as it can not be guaranteed that rain will fall in those areas in the future given the extensive drought that is occuring throughout Victoria. Moreover, developing new dams wherever the rain is falling (at present) would be expensive and also impact negatively on the environment.
"During the proposal, suspicions have risen regarding the tendering process, the submission of an Environmental Effects Statement and the treatment of community groups by the state government." Creates a bias and really should be removed, the article needs to remain WP:NPOV. Also the Criticism section is highly bias and reads a lot like an opinion piece. Random12347 ( talk) 07:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of what would have been written had you intended to create a bias the article needs to be well sourced, this statement is not. Random12347 ( talk) 06:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
This article has been on my to do list for some time, I've begun tidying up the article, doing a general copyedit, reorganising sections, and will do more as soon as I can. If anyone who has any images of the proposed site, artists impressions, photographs of public rallies, etc, to please upload them or email them to me with permission for me to upload them so we can get them into the article :] Please bear with me as I will cite references, fix spelling and straighten all the corners so to speak, in time. Feel free to help in this regard, it would particularly be appreciated in sources references. I've also added a UC tag to the page. Nick carson ( talk) 14:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
This quote has been removed:
"Desalination should remain the last resort, and should only be applied after cheaper alternatives in terms of supply and demand management have carefully been considered".
The quote was attributed to the World Bank, but no external link or reference was provided. Further searching via Google showed that the quote was made by an Australian Politician, and no World Bank document was found.
Click here for the relevant Google Search.
-- One Salient Oversight ( talk) 12:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Editors... thanks for the effort of sorting this out. Nick Carson is hopelessly biased on this subject, so your objective input helps this become a more comprehensive article. If I wanted opinion pieces, I'd read Kenneth Davidson.
I noticed that alot of this article's content has been omitted since late June. Much of this content included information on early assssments, costing, opposition/critisisms, YWYS v MFEH&A case, public rallies and the use of a timeline to adequately establish the chronology of the subject matter. In addition, the location of information that was retained has been compromised as the article no longer flows as well as it did prior to the omissions. Positive contributions since late June have included tidying up references and citation conventions, etc, but other than that the content has been severely compromised and much information lost. I'm doing my best to revert much of what was lost, source new references and perform a general copyedit as I go, but things are going to look untidy for a couple of days so I'll attach an under construction tag so that no information is lost inbetween times. Cheers. Nick carson ( talk) 14:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry but this article reads like a bad joke from EncyclopediaDramatica. The infobox puts the cost of the plant at AU$6 trillion? The article says "Once built, the plant is intended to operate at full capacity for a number of years until Melbourne's dams exceed 65% capacity, at which point the plant will not supply any further water to Melbourne's storages." Except when you look the reference it only says that the plant will be guaranteed to operate at full capacity until the dams reach 65%, it says nothing about what happens afterwards. It has a substantial section on "Suitable alternatives", except that this doesn't really have anything to do with the desalination plant itself, quite apart from the way it doesn't address the problems of those alternatives in a balanced manner. I don't have the time to do a thorough rewrite but I hope someone does. The bias and misinformation makes a mockery of whatever good information that is in the article. -- Sckchui ( talk) 01:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
"Cost of production of desal water to be $1000 a megalitre.[19]" the ref makes no mention that I can see of that. If I missed it please state the page number and lets discuss. And are we talking about operating cost or capital cost, and if the latter, over what period?
Some changes were made and entire paragraphs and sections removed by User:Moondyne. Some changes/removals were warranted and remain undisputed. I subsequently reinstated many of these sections and provided references and/or additional references for them. Moondyne then removed many of these sections again. Rather than get involved in an edit war with Moondyne, I'm seeking to settle the points of contention here.
Other than these points, Moondyne's contributions to spelling, grammar and referencing have been fantastic :] Nick carson ( talk) 05:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
This is the first time i have contributed to wikipedia. No joke, this is one of the most biased articles I have ever read on wikipedia. Every single paragraph presents at least one point against the proposed desalination plant. Present the facts and let the people decide! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.204.39 ( talk) 09:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
When politicians or TV station get written complaints, they regard each one as representing many more people, up to 1000 unhappy constituents or viewers per formal complaint. Many people feel unhappy but never get around to formally complaining. Many people won't sign petitions if they require name and address. I don't think it's wise to push the discussion towards one conclusion or another. Just give the basic facts relevant to the specific topic. If readers want to investigate the meaning further, that's up to them. HiLo48 ( talk) 23:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
What technology does this plant use? Reverse Osmosis. But is it triple-pass? ie, a new desalination plant in Saudi Arabia uses triple-pass, so the water goes thru the membrane 3 times to remove all but 5 mg/L of contaminants. [3] 58.178.202.207 ( talk) 05:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I came across this article whilst reading about desalination. I felt compelled to add to the discussion to agree with many of the comments above to the effect that this is one of the worst articles I have seen on wikipedia. It is biased, incomplete and very poorly referenced. It needs a complete rewrite. Armourhistorian ( talk) 05:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I find constant "interruptions" of obsolete measurement units make the article more difficult to read than need be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.162.121 ( talk) 00:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I removed this reference and the sentence it supported because the actual editorial itself a) says nothing about the Wonthaggi plant, and b) his statement "In fact state and federal governments’ real aims are to create a water market fit for privatisation" is simply an unsupported argument. If anyone wishes to put a similar line into this article ("it's all about privatisation") please use a more unbiased and better researched source. -- One Salient Oversight ( talk) 09:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
There probably needs to be a separate article on Victorian water privatisation. While the plant's construction is probably part of the Victorian government's water privatisation scheme, the two should be separate in Wikipedia. The best solution I think would be an article on Water privatisation in Victoria, Australia, with a section in this Wonthaggi Desal article dedicated to how the plant fits into water privatisation.
I would also strongly suggest that community opposition to the plant and disagreements with official reports and stats be limited to the "Opposition" section of the article, or at least be mentioned only quickly outside it.
The reason for this is that I believe that opponents of the plant have edited the article badly. It is important for all viewpoints to be seen in the Wikipedia article, but adding negative or anti-plant sentences in every paragraph is just too much. it reads badly and comes across as a very biased article - as many people here on the discussion page have mentioned.
-- One Salient Oversight ( talk) 03:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The article says the contract will expire in 2035....but says nothing about which company or consortium got the contract! We need that info in there. 116.240.160.169 ( talk) 16:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
This is the most outstanding example of Wikipedia being used as an opinion bulletin board that ive ever seen. Most of the 'Project Timeline' is completely irrelevant and goes way beyond the scope of informing the reader about the desal plant itself. Its so obvious that this Nick carson character is against the plant, its really quite sad to see him use wiki as a portal for minority view points. I work on the project so for me to make changes would cause a conflict of interest, I sincerely hope someone can re-write this artical from a neutral perspective. Poor form.
Has anyone noticed the anonymous edits with a Thiess IP address? Special:Contributions/202.150.63.35. It's probably too late to do anything about these and there are examples of blatant self promotion in other Leighton Group articles, such edits should be considered a massive conflict of interest WP:COI, in future such edits should be reported to the Administrators noticeboard. WP:AN Surfing bird ( talk) 12:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I have changed the tense of the article as the plant is now complete - 'will provide' to 'provides' and also added details of the 'zero water order' meaning the plant has immediately gone into standby.
Pl here ( talk) 23:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Victorian Desalination Plant. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
This page is funky :) 11:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC) 124.188.23.235 ( talk)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
After giving the article a quick read, I noticed the amount of hearsay evident and the lack of verifiability. Several sources simply say "The Age" Article needs a major re-write to provide a balanced account. Random12347 ( talk) 15:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
The Impact on Environment section fails to provide any sources for the information and contains an opinion piece rather than a factual and well sourced explanation. It needs sources. Random12347 ( talk) 09:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
http://cleantechnica.com/2009/02/22/engineered-osmosis-revolutionizing-saltwater-desalination/
In the early part of the drought there was more annual rainfall compared to the current situation at hand. Thus, along with the water restrictions (that are still in place) the government encouraged Melbourne households to install water tanks. However, over the last few years annual rainfall in the MMA has dropped dramatically and thus water tanks prove to be fruitless for obtaining and using water long-term.
Building other dams in areas where there is some rainfall at present may be very risky (and costly) as it can not be guaranteed that rain will fall in those areas in the future given the extensive drought that is occuring throughout Victoria. Moreover, developing new dams wherever the rain is falling (at present) would be expensive and also impact negatively on the environment.
"During the proposal, suspicions have risen regarding the tendering process, the submission of an Environmental Effects Statement and the treatment of community groups by the state government." Creates a bias and really should be removed, the article needs to remain WP:NPOV. Also the Criticism section is highly bias and reads a lot like an opinion piece. Random12347 ( talk) 07:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of what would have been written had you intended to create a bias the article needs to be well sourced, this statement is not. Random12347 ( talk) 06:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
This article has been on my to do list for some time, I've begun tidying up the article, doing a general copyedit, reorganising sections, and will do more as soon as I can. If anyone who has any images of the proposed site, artists impressions, photographs of public rallies, etc, to please upload them or email them to me with permission for me to upload them so we can get them into the article :] Please bear with me as I will cite references, fix spelling and straighten all the corners so to speak, in time. Feel free to help in this regard, it would particularly be appreciated in sources references. I've also added a UC tag to the page. Nick carson ( talk) 14:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
This quote has been removed:
"Desalination should remain the last resort, and should only be applied after cheaper alternatives in terms of supply and demand management have carefully been considered".
The quote was attributed to the World Bank, but no external link or reference was provided. Further searching via Google showed that the quote was made by an Australian Politician, and no World Bank document was found.
Click here for the relevant Google Search.
-- One Salient Oversight ( talk) 12:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Editors... thanks for the effort of sorting this out. Nick Carson is hopelessly biased on this subject, so your objective input helps this become a more comprehensive article. If I wanted opinion pieces, I'd read Kenneth Davidson.
I noticed that alot of this article's content has been omitted since late June. Much of this content included information on early assssments, costing, opposition/critisisms, YWYS v MFEH&A case, public rallies and the use of a timeline to adequately establish the chronology of the subject matter. In addition, the location of information that was retained has been compromised as the article no longer flows as well as it did prior to the omissions. Positive contributions since late June have included tidying up references and citation conventions, etc, but other than that the content has been severely compromised and much information lost. I'm doing my best to revert much of what was lost, source new references and perform a general copyedit as I go, but things are going to look untidy for a couple of days so I'll attach an under construction tag so that no information is lost inbetween times. Cheers. Nick carson ( talk) 14:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry but this article reads like a bad joke from EncyclopediaDramatica. The infobox puts the cost of the plant at AU$6 trillion? The article says "Once built, the plant is intended to operate at full capacity for a number of years until Melbourne's dams exceed 65% capacity, at which point the plant will not supply any further water to Melbourne's storages." Except when you look the reference it only says that the plant will be guaranteed to operate at full capacity until the dams reach 65%, it says nothing about what happens afterwards. It has a substantial section on "Suitable alternatives", except that this doesn't really have anything to do with the desalination plant itself, quite apart from the way it doesn't address the problems of those alternatives in a balanced manner. I don't have the time to do a thorough rewrite but I hope someone does. The bias and misinformation makes a mockery of whatever good information that is in the article. -- Sckchui ( talk) 01:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
"Cost of production of desal water to be $1000 a megalitre.[19]" the ref makes no mention that I can see of that. If I missed it please state the page number and lets discuss. And are we talking about operating cost or capital cost, and if the latter, over what period?
Some changes were made and entire paragraphs and sections removed by User:Moondyne. Some changes/removals were warranted and remain undisputed. I subsequently reinstated many of these sections and provided references and/or additional references for them. Moondyne then removed many of these sections again. Rather than get involved in an edit war with Moondyne, I'm seeking to settle the points of contention here.
Other than these points, Moondyne's contributions to spelling, grammar and referencing have been fantastic :] Nick carson ( talk) 05:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
This is the first time i have contributed to wikipedia. No joke, this is one of the most biased articles I have ever read on wikipedia. Every single paragraph presents at least one point against the proposed desalination plant. Present the facts and let the people decide! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.204.39 ( talk) 09:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
When politicians or TV station get written complaints, they regard each one as representing many more people, up to 1000 unhappy constituents or viewers per formal complaint. Many people feel unhappy but never get around to formally complaining. Many people won't sign petitions if they require name and address. I don't think it's wise to push the discussion towards one conclusion or another. Just give the basic facts relevant to the specific topic. If readers want to investigate the meaning further, that's up to them. HiLo48 ( talk) 23:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
What technology does this plant use? Reverse Osmosis. But is it triple-pass? ie, a new desalination plant in Saudi Arabia uses triple-pass, so the water goes thru the membrane 3 times to remove all but 5 mg/L of contaminants. [3] 58.178.202.207 ( talk) 05:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I came across this article whilst reading about desalination. I felt compelled to add to the discussion to agree with many of the comments above to the effect that this is one of the worst articles I have seen on wikipedia. It is biased, incomplete and very poorly referenced. It needs a complete rewrite. Armourhistorian ( talk) 05:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I find constant "interruptions" of obsolete measurement units make the article more difficult to read than need be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.162.121 ( talk) 00:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I removed this reference and the sentence it supported because the actual editorial itself a) says nothing about the Wonthaggi plant, and b) his statement "In fact state and federal governments’ real aims are to create a water market fit for privatisation" is simply an unsupported argument. If anyone wishes to put a similar line into this article ("it's all about privatisation") please use a more unbiased and better researched source. -- One Salient Oversight ( talk) 09:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
There probably needs to be a separate article on Victorian water privatisation. While the plant's construction is probably part of the Victorian government's water privatisation scheme, the two should be separate in Wikipedia. The best solution I think would be an article on Water privatisation in Victoria, Australia, with a section in this Wonthaggi Desal article dedicated to how the plant fits into water privatisation.
I would also strongly suggest that community opposition to the plant and disagreements with official reports and stats be limited to the "Opposition" section of the article, or at least be mentioned only quickly outside it.
The reason for this is that I believe that opponents of the plant have edited the article badly. It is important for all viewpoints to be seen in the Wikipedia article, but adding negative or anti-plant sentences in every paragraph is just too much. it reads badly and comes across as a very biased article - as many people here on the discussion page have mentioned.
-- One Salient Oversight ( talk) 03:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The article says the contract will expire in 2035....but says nothing about which company or consortium got the contract! We need that info in there. 116.240.160.169 ( talk) 16:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
This is the most outstanding example of Wikipedia being used as an opinion bulletin board that ive ever seen. Most of the 'Project Timeline' is completely irrelevant and goes way beyond the scope of informing the reader about the desal plant itself. Its so obvious that this Nick carson character is against the plant, its really quite sad to see him use wiki as a portal for minority view points. I work on the project so for me to make changes would cause a conflict of interest, I sincerely hope someone can re-write this artical from a neutral perspective. Poor form.
Has anyone noticed the anonymous edits with a Thiess IP address? Special:Contributions/202.150.63.35. It's probably too late to do anything about these and there are examples of blatant self promotion in other Leighton Group articles, such edits should be considered a massive conflict of interest WP:COI, in future such edits should be reported to the Administrators noticeboard. WP:AN Surfing bird ( talk) 12:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I have changed the tense of the article as the plant is now complete - 'will provide' to 'provides' and also added details of the 'zero water order' meaning the plant has immediately gone into standby.
Pl here ( talk) 23:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Victorian Desalination Plant. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
This page is funky :) 11:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC) 124.188.23.235 ( talk)