Talk:Great Lakes Basin

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
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)

"Basin" map is slightly different than watershed
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:. I added a sentence to soften the given "basin = watershed" definition to reconcile the conflict. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The Feb 21st, 2018 map change fixed the problem. North8000 (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151101103624/http://www.ec.gc.ca/grandslacs-greatlakes/default.asp?lang=En&n=B4E65F6F-1 to https://www.ec.gc.ca/grandslacs-greatlakes/default.asp?lang=En&n=B4E65F6F-1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Importance of nuclear plants?
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)
 * I think you're right.....it sort of says nothing. Maybe we should look through the given source to see if there's anything useful in there. North8000 (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I took a closer look there are a lot of problems there. The power plant count is unsourced and probably wrong.  They appeared to have used that map which was produced by an advocacy organization.  As an example, on the cited map there are inclusions that are not "hot spots" and not even in the Great Lakes basin listed as "hot spots" within the basin. Also, the reference was misidentified as being published by the Canadian government.  It was written and submitted to the government by an advocacy organization and is posted on a government website.   No evidence that it was published by anybody much less the Canadian government.   Between your concerns and that I'm going to delete.  North8000 (talk) 12:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Going to revert your deletion, as the web address for the document has ".ca" in it which means it comes from the government as only government organizations can use the ".ca".--Mark v1.0 (talk) 13:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies to North8000, I am wrong. it is "gov.ca" that comes from the government. I know there are seven Canadian nuclear plants, so 38 plants does not seem too unreasonable. I will see if there are 31 American, and if there are more than seven in Canada.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

gc.ca goes to Canada government website, I might still be correct.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * https://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca is a government website is it not?--Mark v1.0 (talk) 14:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 18 power plants. 18 CANDU reactors in operation in Canada: 8 at Bruce Power, 6 in Pickering, 3 in Darlington, and one in Point Lepreau. https://cna.ca/technology/energy/candu-technology/ --Mark v1.0 (talk) 14:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Point Lepreau is in NB, so a total of 17 reactors I think.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 14:50, 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)
 * yes I agree it can not stay as is because the list is too large, but what stays? Are there not nuclear plants in the great lakes basin?--Mark v1.0 (talk) 11:35, 24 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)


 * Yes there is an immense amount of history to the area that can not be included, but a short synopsis timeline can be made. The importance of the power plants being listed is the invisible radiation they can produce and release that can cause cancer and possible immediate death to many people should they explode like Chernobyl or Fukushima . Unlike the example of the listing of car dealerships or ice cream shops in the area.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 12:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I'll do a cheat for a temporary measure to make the article look more presentable by adding a click on drop down menu.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion of Nuclear power plants?
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)
 * The only reason the nuclear plants were built in their locations was for the cooling ability of the lakes. The lakes take the heat (how much heat?) and the pollution they produce. We need a third (or more) party-editor to see if they think nuclear power plants are relevant to the article.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I not disputing that, my point is that the article is about the basin aspect, not what is contained within the basin. North8000 (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The nuclear entries do seem to stick out like a sore thumb. They don't belong at all.  The primary focus of any watershed/basin article is geography, and I fail to see how the number of nuclear plants fits into this.  Adding stuff like "$x people live in the watershed" is fine, although not strictly necessary.  Adding information about impacts to the water basin is obviously fine, but currently, the article sources one article about one plant and presents it as if the problem is "nuclear power", rather than this one plant.  Even then, there isn't a study to show impairment.  All the nuclear stuff is WP:undue in this article.  It could be included in other, more specific articles (ie: Ottawa River), but here it serves only as a distraction from the geographical content. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 16:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)