Talk:Portlands Energy Centre

Canada: Ontario / Toronto Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ontario portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Toronto (assessed as Low-importance).

Energy Low‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

I have added the {{POV-check}} template to this page as it reads like a leaflet produced by campaigners against the power plant to explain the history of the dispute. Thryduulf 19:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that with the addition of verifiable facts, the article is fine...but it really needs citations and sources. DPeterson^talk 23:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does appear a bit biased. One would expect more on the technical issues, the engineering issues, some discussion of the value of putting a power plant close to its users. While oppositional activism might be of interest to those planning opposition to other similar projects, that is only a small part of what this project entails. The column inches devoted to the opposition to the plant outweigh the encyclopaedic information by too large a margin. Digital beach 02:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The item is, as noted above, very much a product of what a group who opposed the plant have to say. A major update is required as, for starters, the plant is well on its way to completion. Ted Gruetzner, Portlands Energy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.236.230 (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to bring a little more balance by removing the "limbo" section and adding references to the TCP press release and annual report which describe the current (early 2008) status of the project. BTurgeon 04:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a reference to the Government and OPG's Memorandum of Agreement which bars alternative energy. Also cleaned up lead to indicate plant is currently under construction. Dabbler (talk) 11:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update Required

The article needs a major update to reflect the fact that the plant is operational and an explanation of what was actualy built rather than the proposal - the controversy sections could also be reduced with the final outcome of the plant being built some points are now irrelevant. I have tagged the article for an update.

eja2k 23:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]