Talk:Pickering, Ontario

Untitled
I question the accuracy of whether Boer War veterans still reside ANYWHERE. The Boer War was, like, 1899-1902. WWI vets are extremely rare, and that was 12-16 years later. Scientz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.123.192.82 (talk) 14:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Clean up tag
This article has some promise, but it reads in part like local government booster pamphlet and it requires to be reshaped to flow better. Dabbler 02:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Appears the cleanup tag was removed, but I've added a history section and hope to add more. Hopefully this will help. Blotto adrift 15:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Poor quality Article
The article has a number of inaccuracies. There are two separate nuclear stations on the site - A and B. They share a few common systems but for most important intents they are administered separately. The A side was shut down for economic reasons in 1997, not safety reasons. Pickering A is the second commercial-scale nuclear station in Canada and still represents a very early CANDU design (the first was Douglas Point).

The piece is missing virtually all the technical details. A photo would be nice. I'll try to add them when I get some time.

Really - there should be two articles, not one.


 * There is a separate article on Pickering Nuclear - please see Pickering Nuclear Generating Station. This would be the best place for technical details.  Blotto adrift 15:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The "Crime" section of this article makes a number of claims without any evidence. Either evidence should be cited or linked or the section should be deleted, regardless of how intuitive or obvious the recent relationship between Scarborough and Pickering may seem to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.146.110 (talk) 19:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"Twenty-first century"
- I have some questions about a section of text you added to the history section, into a sub-section you created entitled "Twenty-first century". Because you have reverted multiple attempts to trim or move your edit, this would be the best place to discuss it.

You added:"Pickering has experienced greater downtown intensification with the San Francisco by the Bay condo developments near the lake shore. The enclosed pedestrian bridge over 14 lanes of highway 401 was also a recent development that has contributed to Pickering's push for greater downtown intensification. Several other notable investors are looking to intensify south Pickering's downtown core area. The billionaire Apostolopoulos family are developing Durham Live in south Pickering with the intent of building a water park, film studio, five star hotel, performing arts theater and possibly a casino. Durham Live received approval for construction in 2017."

The first sentence, "Pickering has experienced greater downtown intensification with the San Francisco by the Bay condo developments near the lake shore", is supported by this source. First, how does a condo development at the lake shore--miles from downtown--lead to greater downtown intensification? Also, the source cited does not mention "downtown intensification". Was this original research? Also, do you feel that a promotional advertisement by a condo company is a reliable source?

The second sentence states: "The enclosed pedestrian bridge over 14 lanes of highway 401 was also a recent development that has contributed to Pickering's push for greater downtown intensification". To support this, you cherrypicked a highly biased source--the town's own website--which toots a loud horn about fairly insignificant issues. Regarding the bridge, the town's website states "Pickering's fully enclosed landmark pedestrian bridge spans 14 lanes of Highway 401, Canada's busiest transportation link, interconnecting our main mobility hub with our emerging City Centre. Residents and commuters alike now enjoy safe, easy and sheltered access to an integrated transportation network, shopping, services and home." It goes on to state that the bridge plays "a significant role in the dramatic transformation of our City Centre". Do you feel that using a source loaded with puffery is appropriate? Do you believe that the bridge merits the significance you have stated in your edit? The second source cited was a local newspaper which wrote--regarding the development of downtown Pickering--"We’ve got the pedestrian bridge and this whole transit-friendly mobility hub". The extent to which the pedestrian bridge is notable, or it's genuine effect on downtown development, needs greater scrutiny.

In the last sentence, you wrote "Several other notable investors are looking to intensify south Pickering's downtown core area. The billionaire Apostolopoulos family are developing Durham Live in south Pickering with the intent of building a water park, film studio, five star hotel, performing arts theater and possibly a casino. Durham Live received approval for construction in 2017". The first source cited simply states that "The Ontario Municipal Board has ruled in favour of plans for a massive development in Pickering that could include a casino". At this point, this is just a plan. No shovel has even his the ground. It's unclear who the "several other notable investors" are, or why you have included "the billionaire Apostolopoulos family". Neither source cited states that the Apostolopoulos family has been selected as the developer of the planed project. Why have they been included?

Finally, I had trimmed and moved this section of text to the "economy" section of the article, but you moved it back to the history section. How is an economic plan for the future more appropriate in the history section? User:LeonV, I would appreciate your responses, as well as the input of others. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)