Talk:Meech Lake

Canada: Ottawa / Geography 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.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Ottawa (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Geography of Canada.

Lakes Low‑importance

	Lakes portal Meech Lake is within the scope of WikiProject Lakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of lake-related articles on Wikipedia, using the tools on the project page. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LakesWikipedia:WikiProject LakesTemplate:WikiProject LakesLakes articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disambiguation?

Perhaps en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meech_Lake should go straight to the page for the Meech Lake Accord instead of here, or to a disambiguation page. I'd think the former, as I suspect more people will be interested in the accord, rather than the lake itself. --FNV 00:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Meech Lake should refer to the lake, Meech Lake Accord should refer to the negotiation. PK T(alk) 12:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1988 study

The fourth paragraph reads "In 1988, a study conducted for the NCC confirmed that Meech Lake residents are responsible for most of the human-produced phosphorus flowing into the lake, i.e., 66%, whereas visitors only account for 26%. Phosphorus, in excessive amounts is responsible for the proliferation of blue-green algae, a problem that has afflicted the lake in recent years. This study is too old to be cited here." Two comments: (1) the acronym "NCC" is used here for the first time in the article, but is not explained until it recurs in the next paragraph ("National Capital Commission"); (2) why ever would a 1988 study be "too old to be cited here"? (no further explanation is given, and 1988 is less than 30 years ago). I regularly read Wikipedia articles that cite studies and reports going back far longer than that, without any such comment being made.213.127.210.95 (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]