Talk:The Green Deal

Merge
Recommend the green deal page be merged into this existing page. The new page reads like a push piece from advertisers and offers no citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.152.9 (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

merge completed.

Introduction
The intro to this article is inadequate. It launches straight into a NPOV critique without defining even what the editor was ranting about.

I do not know much about this policy, but if I get time I'll read up on it and try to make this article better.

If anyone else knows about this policy and would be willing to help, then go for it!

Climatophile (talk) 12:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The quality of assessments has previously been drawn drawn into question. It was also suggested that the training course was a 2 day affair. This was incorrect. The assessor has to be a green deal adviser or GDA. For this you have to be a qualified domestic energy assessor (DEA). This in itself is the equivalent of an A level. The GDA qualification is a top-up to the DEA.This involves a 3 day course, an exam and submission of portfolio. All in this would equate to about a full weeks work and fees of well over £1000 with a reputable body. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.216.1.29 (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I would also add it goes beyond what is necessary for an introduction section, the first paragraph might suffice.88.105.95.81 (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

bias edit - potential company push
It appears a few years ago the article was rewritten to remove most of the criticism despite this being reliable sourced and generally cast the scheme in an artifically positive light. I'm not sure for the rationale for this but I have sort to correct it and restore the previous material to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.34.195 (talk) 04:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)