Talk:Aera Energy
| WikiProject Energy | (Rated Start-class, Low-importance) | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||
Just like Shell and Exxon/Mobil, Aera doesn't have a perfect track record. I think Aera's shortfalls should be listed just as its parent companies' errors are listed on their own wikipedia pages.
Aera is currently at the forefront of the missing middle controversy in north orange county. Open space that currently serves as a low-production oil field, cow pasture, and a wildlife corridor is in the process of being turned into a 3600 plot housing development. Not only will the construction destroy one of the last open spaces in an increasingly urbanized area, but it will add traffic, pollution, and other waste (visual, energy, trash, etc.) associated with increased population density.
I think the controversy deserves fair say on Aera's webpage. I find it contentious to call Aera environmentally friendly. If there is no reply within three days I will add to the article. LostCause 11:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. I just ask that you avoid editorializing by keeping a neutral tone. Please include references. I’d love to read more on the topic.
I’d also appreciate help making the main article more neutral. I'll see about reworking the environmentallu friendly statement. cmntgmry
- I added the information, but it might require some stylistic changes to make it sound more neutral. It was tough not to sound biased because the only information I could find concerning Aera's viewpoint was a simple webpage vaguely detailing their development plan. Opponents web pages offered detailed maps of the areas in concern and relatively up to date information, such as the dates and outcomes of town hall meetings. Also, adding a picture to the article might make the issue much clearer but I need to find one and get permission first. The article also looks a bit awkward now since a paragraph above the "Environmental Issues" headline extols Aera's environmentally friendliness...
- I hope the article feels more encyclopedic now rather than corporate newsletter-ish. It still needs a lot of work, though. LostCause 15:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Looks fine. I'll see if I can find more about Aera's side and clean it up. Thanks! --Cmntgmry 04:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Formatting
Does anyone else think this article needs some work to conform with the Wiki style? I am thinking specifically of the "business relationships" section. The introduction could also use more content. Warren (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
