Talk:The Ocean Cleanup/Archive 1

Removed redirect to GPgp
Hi! I have removed the redirect to the [|Great Pacific garbage patch] as those two topics are related but definitely not the same. I will start creating an article here soon, but will probably put it up for review first. Merelsara (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Microplastic installation
Perhaps the comment at Talk:Marine_debris can be of use somehow to this article. KVDP (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Materials of Construction?
I am looking for information about the materials of construction. I ASSUME that the pipe and the net is plastic. The simplest and cheapest plastics would probably be "traditional" non-biodegradable plastics (PVC for pipe; PE or PP for the netting). However, they might have chosen to try biodegradable, non-toxic plastics for the device (PLA, cellulose, nylon, etc.). DOES ANYONE KNOW THE MATERIALS OF CONSTRUCTION?

I believe that those behind this effort know that plastics are GOOD for some things (like pipes and screens for scavenging microplastic waste on a large scale) and that they also know how to use plastics wisely and carefully so as not to ADD to the problem in the short term or the long term. AdderUser (talk) 20:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Adding info as I find it: One version of the floats used rubber coated polyester. They look like pillows or inflatable life vests (but bigger). DSM Dyneema fiber is used to hold sections together along the surface. DSM Dyneema fiber is ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) and is stronger than Aramid, a polyamide fiber. I am still looking for info about the netting. AdderUser (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Major change in technology
In May 2017, the description of the technology was drastically and dramatically changed from the previously proposed technology (100km long anchored beams) to a completely novel concept (1 to 2 km long free-floating beams). I have no idea when and why this change was made by the Ocean Cleanup organization. I can imagine that this was a change from a more-or-less utopic idea to something feasible. I would suggest that this change in described in the article instead of just sweeping it under the table. Andreas (T) 01:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, they realized their original system would break. I have extended the Technology-section to add info about the previous proposals. The part about their current proposal needs some work, though. Heb the best (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Good sources
I have found the following secondary sources, which I consider quite good. They are able to replace many of the primary sources currently used, and provide some more info about what the skeptics/critics are concerned about.

Heb the best (talk) 13:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/08/scientists-get-ready-to-begin-great-pacific-garbage-patch-cleanup
 * https://www.npr.org/2018/09/11/646724291/a-massive-floating-boom-is-supposed-to-clean-up-the-pacific-can-it-work (contains a lot of links within the article)
 * https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/26/ocean-cleanup-project-environment-pollution-boyan-slat (a bit dated)

Graphics
We need diagrams! I know a few graphics people but forget right now who they are. Anyone? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Done! Thanks to User:Weegaweek! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

This article does not seem neutral
I find the following things problematic: Does other agree with me? --Heb the best (talk) 12:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The lead section starts by listing their donors, not what they have done or will do.
 * The research-section is disproportionally big, which gives the impression that they are an scientific institution, which they are not. This should only cover what is stated in the peer-reviewed articles.
 * The articles seems to promise that the technology will work, even though it is still under development.
 * All the criticism are answered directly after it is stated. I have not seen this practice anywhere else on Wikipedia.
 * Almost all sources are from their own web page.
 * 1) This information is covered elsewhere in the article. The donors and donations do seem extraneoous.
 * 2) I'm not sure what to say here. They did do the expeditions, did they not?
 * 3) They've apparently done testing, and are at the point of launching their first array in 5 days time.
 * 4) I have seen it done that way occasionally. I'm thinking that section should be rewritten to reflect that the 5 Gyres Institute point were regarding the older prototype.
 * 5) I tend to agree with this, but is that because there might be a dearth of secondary sources?
 * 12.221.231.194 (talk) 22:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) I have moved the donors to their own section. The lead section needs some work, though.
 * 2) The problem isn't the content, but the proportions. After all, TOC is first and foremost a engineering organization, striving to build technology to solve the problem. Not a research-institution. The article should reflect this. I have expanded the technology-section, but more work needs to be done.
 * 3) The tests have mostly been about the structural integrity of the systems, not whether or not it can catch plastic out in the big ocean. It is fine to state their estimates, but it should be clear that it is theirs, and what the premises for those estimates are.
 * 4) I don't know what the correct way to do it is, but the way it is done now, it seems like it could be a blog-post from TOC, refuting the criticism.
 * 5) No, they have gotten excessive media coverage. Heb the best (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have now mitigated all the things I found problematic, with the exception of (4) and (5), so I moved the NPOV-tag to the critisism-section. (5) is still mainly unadressed, I guess it is because it is always easier to go the their website, than go looking for news articles. For (4), I think the best solution would, in accordance with WP:CSECTION be to make a "feasability"-section, discussion if the system will work. This is the main area where critisism is directed. The point about "taking" the funding from other can then be moved to the funding-section. Heb the best (talk) 05:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) I agree that the criticism section absolutely should not have responses to criticism in them. That is up for readers to decide on their own. I also see no mention of heavy criticism like this. --V2os (talk) 07:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Interceptor project added Oct. 2019
With Interceptor project/initiative announced in Oct. 2019, where to fit that in? Make new Ocean and Rivers sections, indent existing ocean content under Ocean? Doug Grinbergs (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

The Funding data looks wrong added Apr 2021
The $35m figure as of Nov 2019 looks wrong. That is perhaps the USD amount raised in 2019, not the total raised up to 2019. As of November 2019, The Ocean Cleanup raised EUR 82m from donations (~US$100m) based on their annual reports:

There is no one article that captures this - you have to dig through all their annual reports to find it. Missbossy (talk) 14:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Miguel25morell.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 10 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kbrower2020.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Excessive amount of detail in this article
This article is disproportionately detailed for a relatively minor research organisation. The History and Research sections in particular are excessively long. I have never seen an article for another research group with entire separate paragraphs devoted to every single paper the group has published, and a summary of the group's activities for every calendar year of its existence. I suggest condensing these two sections into a couple of paragraphs. Scleractinian (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Updated; left in some of the detail that seemed relevant from the perspective of others trying to fork or replicate the work; their publication of their failure modes and reasons for design changes are a notable feature of their work. – SJ + 19:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)