Talk:Three Gorges Dam/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Some kind of "dangers" or "problems" section needed

There is no argument that this dam wass a massive undertaking which was quite beyond the capabilities of the Chinese government. There are dozens of cracks in the side of the dam, and given the history of dams catastrophically failing in china, such as the Banqiao_Dam failure in 1975 which killed over 200,000 people, this is a serious concern. Considering some of the largest cities and population masses in china are downstream from the largest dam in history, it might be worth pointing out that it only takes one corrupt official and a non-reinforced-concrete-slab-instead-of-a-reinforced-concrete-slab-because-it-was-cheaper for disaster to strike. Obvious we need sources but Wikipedia is full of ingenius people who are good at fabricating perfectly acceptable resources. Lets get cracking! 203.166.110.82 (talk) 03:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

MG or GW

Someone who knows the matter should fix the generator output references in this article. In one place it says the total output is 22.5MW, and another place it says 22.5GW. Sorry if this isn't the right way to edit. Wiki ought to come up with a real discussion forum soution rather than this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.23.23 (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Where did you find the "22.5 MW"? I looked through and couldn't find it.Calvingao (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

nick hi lolololololololololboo ==Calvingoa and Propaganda== Just wan't to warn you of Calvingoa who will undo edits that are not in favor of China. This article has alot of plagiarism and is biased in some aspects. I believe Wikipedia should be unbiased and not a place of propaganda. Tell Calvingoa and anyone else against anti-china or anti-dam information to stop undoing edits that make the article less biased and less in favor of its pro-chinese stance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.211.177 (talk) 05:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
ref>Insert footnote text here</ref>Hi there, the environmental issue of the dam should go to the section "criticism" and the page "environmental issue related to the dam". Feel free to expand those sections and add any reliable info if you want.
The section continuous false believes of the dam is wrote it by myself. I am pretty sure you cannot find another one online anywhere else from wiki. Just make people have eccess to the most updated data about migration and power production.
If you think the info from Chinese government is not reliable, that's OK. You should talk in the talk page before you eliminate those sections. Once we reached a unanimous decision, we should edit the page.Calvingao (talk) 01:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Unsound critics

Some critics in the page is too political and not relevent to the project itself. For example: "However, critics argued that increased output would not automatically mean the ease of consumption, and the reason is political. The Chinese electrical power market is monopolized by the state owned enterprises, which is the largest interest group in China because they are all run by Li Peng's relatives and close associates. With the monopoly, the price was set so high that most of the poor regions could not afford to use electricity, a fact that has already been repeated many times in many regions of China. As a result, the increased output would not bring the development in to the local area like the government has claimed, only benefit the wealthy coastal regions, further increasing the wealth disparity. Although Chinese government has recognized the problem of the monopoly of the electricity market, repeated attempts to introduce market reforms in to the electrical energy sector have all failed due to the resistance of the interest groups."

Another comment: "Critics point out that various levels of Chinese government's industrial developmental plans based on the increased power production have a fatal flaw: all of them lack sufficient pollution control plans. In fact, nearly all of the newly completed industrial sites in the region lack appropriate pollution treatment facilities and increased electricity output only worsen the problem."

Obviously, even if China did not launch the dam project, it would still need other energy source to satisfy its thirst for energy. In other words, whether or not the three gorges dam were built, the problem mentioned in those paragraphs could not be avoided. Thus, simply blame them to the dam project is unfair.

In addition, some comment is not ture. For example: "Under the order of the biggest proponent of the dam, then premier Li Peng, the cost was based on 1980's prices, with almost no inflation included in the estimate. Opposition to the dam and to the fraudulent numbers being used to promote it was willfully ignored in the report in order to ensure its passage. One of the main opponents of the dam, famous Chinese activist, Li Rui, repeatedly voiced his concerns about rigged numbers and estimates, but the pleas of Li and others fell on deaf ears. As a retired senior communist official and Mao Zedong's former secretary, Li Rui managed to evade governmental prosecution. Dai Qing was not that lucky."

However, according to a report by Xinhua News [1], the original budget (203 billion yuan) did consider the inflation. Thanks to the low inflation rate in recent years, the whole project is expected to be finished with only 180 billion yuan.

I have delete those comments. And two cents I also need to point out: first, China was in an extreme short of electricity during 2001~2004, the dam did relieve a lots to the shortage. Second, considering the 1 trillion US$ reserves held by China (= 8000 billion yuan), the three gorges dam is not so costly as some people had thought -- the Chinese government can afford it easily.

Sinolonghai 22:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Billion

What kind of billion is used to refer to the investment costs? The European (million million) kind or the American (thousand million)? Plop 12:53, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

I would guess the American version, as this is much more widely used internationally. Also, it seems unlikely that even a dam this size would cost anyway near $1,000,000,000,000. 134.219.168.14 07:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Not if it's in Zimbabwean dollar! Heilme 05:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Why pay millions, when you can pay.... billions!!! 24.89.245.62 07:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

Why is the neutrality of this article disputed? Stargoat 02:07, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The disputed message tag was added by User:TheSeez on Feb 18. I left a message asking him or her to explain. If the user does not respond within a few days, I suggest that you simply remove the disputed message. older ≠ wiser 02:20, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Potable water in Three Gorges Reservoir?

According to the plan, many cities both modern and ancient will be under water when the dam complete and the water level rises to form a reservoir. My question is how drinkable the entire river will become when city structures, such as gas stations, septic tanks, chemical factories line the bottom of a major water source of millions of people downstream. One may argue that cleanup will be performed before the flooding occured. Based on our experience with the "Superfund" clean up projects in the US, we learned that clean up is extremely expensive for area as small as one city block. But they are going to need to do similiar clean up for cities and cities. Will they do it or risk the health of billion of people? 67.170.239.52 05:58, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Almost ALL the text is verbatim from the following website:

http://www.chinaonline.com/refer/ministry_profiles/threegorgesdam.asp

I dont know if that is a problem

portable water? Do you mean water that can be transported from place to place, or water that is drinkable? If the later, the correct word is "potable".--Baoluo 03:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"In other words, hydro-dams are already obsolete"

In Three_Gorges_Dam#Debate_over_the_dam, the above statement hails fossil fuel electrical generation as superior to hydroelectric power. This is POV. Pud 12:50, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have removed the above paragraph. Pud 22:23, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Repeated Information

Section 2 (Debate over the dam) and section 3(Summary of arguments) repeate eachother, one of these sections sould be removed. Pud 22:22, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Done. Pud 22:05, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The sections Construction Timetable, Funding Sources, Proposal of Project and Approval of Project also seem to be repeated.

Weasel Terms

The article goes on and on about the "defenders" and the "critics". We don't need constant disclaimers and classification of statements, the facts need to stand on their own. And they actually do, we just need to let them... --Joy [shallot]

Absolutely! And the controversy section is almost half the article. I am sensitive to the environmental dispute and think it can be more effective with a dose of brevity and clarity. Pud 01:00, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Some Engineers

We need a reference for the recent addition; "Some engineers also predict that the dam will not be able to hold the pressure of the water from the reservoir. If the dam should collapse, the release of the water in the reservoir would send a massive tidal wave down the river. This tidal wave would destroy anything in its path, and kill millions of people."

Duk 14:55, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I hope my addition on your talk page will be sufficient. Cyrloc 02:33, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(per Cyrloc, This article can be found at The Damming of the Yangtze River.) Duk 15:17, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Also, would really like to see a usage chart of how the water of the dam is planned to be used. Sgt. Grunty 18:06, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Three gorge dam is the biggest but not the highest. There are several dams in the world which are higher than 200m compare to 170m of the three gorge. With the help of engineers from the west and chinese engineers' own experience, the dam is strong enough to hold the water, that's not a problem.Calvingao 20:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Navigation: Size of vessels that can pass through the locks

There is a panamax and a seawaymax, so what is the wuhanmax? What are the dimensions of the ship lift? How long will it take to ascend and descend through the locks? How long will it take to ascend and descend on the ship lift? Will it be possible to use the locks before the basin is full? How long is it expected to tak to fill the basin?

The basin is expected to be full in 2009. -- Beland 20:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Relocation not mentioned?

The article says nothing or very little about the relocation of 1.2 million people in thousands of villages, towns and cities that have existed for thousands of years. Im not too enlightened on the subject but it appears to be a major controversy because no dam has ever relocated so many people.

Go to http://www.irn.org/programs/threeg/resettle.html

I came here to make just this point. Much more is needed on resettlement. I think that many will agree that resettlement presents the greatest difficulty of this entire project. 71.105.98.198 00:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

plagiarism & npov

The content of this article is copied almost verbatim from this website: [2]

As any 14-year-old who's done a book report knows, just because it's listed in the "References" doesn't give you the right to copy it word-for-word and pass it off as your own. This is called "plagiarism". Not only that, but the website in question is in blatant opposition to the dam, so its quite likely that this anti-dam bias has carried over to the Wikipedia article. A precursory glance tells me that not only has the bias from the original website been carried over, more has been added. For example, the only mention of the sluice gates designed to prevent siltation is "sluice gates that many people believe will be ineffective". Who says they will be ineffective? "Many"? I checked the article's references and I could find no mention of this.

This project is major news, and it deserves a better article than this. And considering the controversy involved, it needs CITATIONS. I'm marking this article as NPOV. If anyone can speak Chinese, the Chinese-language version is a featured article. Try translating that. Bueller 007 01:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing the NPOV tag because your complaint above is not about NPOV. It's about crappy citations and quality of the article. I'll replace the NPOV tag with the citations-complaint tag. Tempshill 06:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

That's why the neutrality of this article is disputed.Calvingao 20:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

History of the flooding

I thought the lower Yangtze has suffered severe flooding every decade, on average, for thousands of years, but this is contradicted by this sentence in the article:

Probe International asserts that the dam does not address the real source of flooding, which is the loss of forest cover in the Yangtze watershed and the loss of 13,000 km² of lakes (which had greatly helped to alleviate floods) due to siltation, reclamation and uncontrolled development.

Can someone knowledgeable mention at that point in the article whether the flooding has demonstrably been worse over the last decades? Tempshill 06:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, no major flood after 1998. After the 1998 flood, Chinese goverment decided to ban forest logging and tried to recover lakes. It seems this policy works.

==============================

Flooding of the Yangtze goes back to 2000 years, and has historically killed hundreds of thousands of people, particularly when the country was unable to get organised to regularly control the Yangtze. The authors of the above paragraph, and the one who posted it to Wiki, doesn't know history at all, and as such I am deleting the paragraph.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/flood/deluge.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2207324.stm http://aboutgaoyou.com/history_pages/9_1931floods2.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.55.55.108 (talk) 23:48:05, August 18, 2007 (UTC)

Generation capacity

"26 generators (with a combined generating capacity of 18.2 million kW) will be able to generate 84.7 billion kWh electricity annually". These two figures don't really agree:

• 84.7 billion kWh/year
• = 0.232 billion kWh/day
• = 232 million kWh/day
• = 9.67 million kWh/hour
• = 9.67 million kW

.. which is (roughly) half the "combined generating capacity of 18.2 million kW". Does this mean that the generators only average 50% of power capacity? Or is that figrue in error? (The figure for annual energy seems to be correct - see [3]). Tompw 13:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

maybe the generators are only 50% efficient. Who knows. Good call though. Heilme 05:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I also question the output of 18.2 million kW. 18.2 million kw is the same as 18200 MW. According to the article the dam is to provide 10% of China's power at the time of design and 3% when actually in service. Does the plant actually produce this amount of electricity? Ontario, Canada has a record use of around 26 000 MW during the peak period during summer. If the Dam produces the figure stated, it would produce 70% of the peak needed in Ontario. Meaning that China has a peak load of 620 000 MW! To put this in perspective, China just put on line 2 new nuclear reactors at ~600 MW net. They would need 1033 reactors to carry peak load. This is probaly more than the total in the world.

As to the capacity factor, no plant runs at 100% due to maintenance and Hydro plants are reliant on the weather. If it don't rain or snow, the water level upstream of the dam will lower and cause derating.

Again the capacity of the three gorge dam project is not 18,200MW any more. It has the capacity of 22,500MW, which include 14 generator in the left side of the dam and 12 generators in the right side of the dam and 6 additional generators in the underground power station, each of them has the capacity of 700MW, plus 2 generators of 50MW to support the whole power station in case there is a power failure of the dam. So the total capacity is 22,500MW.

Ontario's normal peak power consumption is about 20,000MW. That's true, if the three gorge dam is in full power, it can support the whole Ontario.

The generators are built by world top companies like Alstone (EDIT: Alstom), GE, Siemens ect. So there is no doubt that they are the best ones in the world right now. The efficiency are all over 90%. The reason why the annual power production is so low compare to the capacity is as follows. First, Yangtze river is a seasonal river. In summer it can have a flow of 60,000m^3 /s, in winter, it can go as low as 4,000m^3/s. So in winter, it is not designed be full powered.Second, in the summer, in order to leave room to the floor control and have less precipitant, it will lower the water level to 156m, which will generate less power by same amount of water than when the water level is at 175m.Calvingao 20:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

China has 40 times bigger population than Canada has. Last summer, China's peak load about 600GW,and will grow to about 700GW in 2007. The three gorge dam can support about a little over 2% of China's electricity consumption right now. China's anual power consumption is about 2834.4TWh in 2006. In another words, three gorge dam will produce about 2.9% of the electricity consumption in China when it's completed..Calvingao 20:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Generation numbers still sound wrong

The Itaipu dam has something like 14.5 GW capacity and produces around 95 TWh per year, and this dam is going to have a capacity of 22.5 GW and yet we are saying that expected annual production will be around 85 TWh???? I know that the capacity factor for dams is different depending on a host of factors, but this is a HUGE difference. It seems odd that they would be installing that much capacity if they weren't expecting more generation.

And I put in the graph of the total electricity use. Just to clarify, this doesn't look like it would be any 10% of the total even if it worked at 100% all of the time. It'll be a blip... maybe... actually you might not even be able to see it on that graph (after it's finished). -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is my two cents. Three major factors could skew the capacity to actual generation ratio: nights, flood control and navigation. Power consumption drops significantly at night, thus power generation. China is notorious of energy inefficiency, therefore, it might be safe to assume that the country's off-peak consumption is significantly imbalanced comparing to industrialized nations. Flood control, as others have mentioned elsewhere, is another factor. Water diversion has been intensified along the Yangtze River in recent years, thus, much lower flux in the dry season. The dam needs to guarantee that 5,000t boats can reach Chongqing year around.--68.107.4.76 09:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

wow, that's a lot of factors that go into it. Still, it seems to me that the meaning of the 22.5 GW figure is that it will be mostly a peaking plant. Do you think that's true? -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable source confirming capacity of 22,500MW? Most of sources still reports 18,200 MW. What is the correct figure? Beagel (talk) 07:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the difference between what it is and what it will be. However, after the December additions, I'm not so sure the 18,200 is at this very second correct. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Sizes missing

Strangely enough, the dam sizes are missing from the article's first paragraph.. I think it is something like 186 meters high, 2350 meters wide. Does anyone have the numbers? Gil_mo 22:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, just got it in my Geography class...it's 612 feet high (dunno how many metres),1.3 miles long (the dam), 400 miles of resevoir (as long as the Grand Canyon). METALFREAK04 (talk) 10:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Time of compeletion

The three gorge dam is supposed to complete in 2009. But with the additional project such as the underground power plant and the delay of the ship lifter, it won't complete until 2011. But the chinese government will probably still announce the completion of the project in 2009 or even in 2008 because the rest of the project is so small and negligable compare to the whole project.Calvingao 20:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

endangered species

There is a lot of criticism about three gorge dam is based on it's impact on the endangered species. Actually, it is not the three gorge dam changed the habitat of those endangered fishes. There is a dam just 50 km downstream of the three gorge dam called Gezhouba dam, which doesn't have fish latters. So it's unfair to blame three gorge dam just because it's the world largest one.Calvingao 21:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Effect on earths axis

According to the discovery channel, the lake behind the dam will be so heavy that it will actually adjust the axis of the earth such that each day will be slightly longer. Can anyone find a verifiable web reference for this statement? --mitrebox 16:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That effect is probably not significant; this isn't that big a lake. The melting of the polar icecaps is a bigger deal, because that moves sizable water from the poles towards the equator, which increases the earth's moment of inertia. This is monitored by the Earth Rotation Service. --John Nagle 17:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The northern ice cap floats. It won't move any more mass to the equator, just as it won't increase sea levels. We'll have to wait for Greenland and Antarctica to melt for that to happen. It will affect the salinity though. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

He's probably right though that there will be an effect. The real question is how big of one. I mean jumping up and down WILL affect the rotation of the earth just not by an amount we can sense, but a 22 billion ton lake I bet will have an effect we can pick up on. Though not because it's a big effect, but just because we're damn good at detecting little changes. --Reyals 20:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

According to this, all the dams built around the world have together shortened the day by maybe a thousandth of a second by moving water away from the equator, letting the Earth spin a tiny bit faster with a little less mass to move at its widest part. The Discovery Channel probably just mentioned the reservoir effect because it sounds impressive. Overall, and especially applied to a single dam, it's pretty irrelevant. --Mr. Billion 06:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This article needs a cleanup...

I've been reading this article, and I've been reading some sentences like "Huge reservoirs by their nature..." and "...approximately 95% currently winter in wetlands that will be destroyed by the Three Gorges Dam." . Yeah, this article really needs help. Abby724 23:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

This article in general is highly negative towards the project and fails to cite it's sources for a number of critical passages. Here's an example:

"However, critics argued that increased output would not automatically mean the ease of consumption, and the reason is political. The Chinese electrical power market is monopolized by the state owned enterprises, which is the largest interest group in China because they are all run by Li Peng's relatives and close associates. With the monopoly, the price was set so high that most of the poor regions could not afford to use electricity, a fact that has already been repeated many times in many regions of China. As a result, the increased output would not bring the development in to the local area like the government has claimed, only benefit the wealthy coastal regions, further increasing the wealth disparity. Although Chinese government has recognized the problem of the monopoly of the electricity market, repeated attempts to introduce market reforms in to the electrical energy sector have all failed due to the resistance of the interest groups."

One would think that such a sweeping statement would be supported in some fashion. Sadly it's not. This part should probably be removed.

Remove it on sight. This kind of childish ignorance is what caused 1.4 billion people to be unaccessible to Wikipedia. Aran|heru|nar 13:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this viable in the long term

The article is written well however it only touches on the problems lightly. The fact of the matter is you have a area of the world that floods every ten years. The last flooding was in 1998. The project was finished in 2006...it IS on a fault line. Therefore the countdown exists as to actually "testing" it. Don't act like this thing will last because the vast majority of projects in the world that involve forcing water in given directions don't work in the long run. Look at Libyas great man made river project and look at Boston's Big dig.

Until a system is actually tested it should not impress well upon people. Also to note the pressure will be on the PRC next year not only on this but because of the fact they are going to host the Olympics potentially at the same time. If this project collapses we're talking death and destruction on a massive scale. Picture Hurricane Katrinas damage to New Orleans but on a regional scale for a country and with a population at least fifty fold higher....

I think what you said make sense, but that is still POV. We can't possibly write about a disaster that MIGHT happen. Very much like no one dare write about a possible hurricane in New Orlean that MIGHT kill thousands of people. If it happens, then it wouldn't be a problem. But as of right now, it would be speculation. Also, please sign your post. Yongke 01:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Less Unofficial Estimate

Please use less unofficial estimate in this artical.Although China is still undercontrol of communism party, it's statistics is pretty reliable. Some of the numbers like the costs of the project and how many people have to be relocated are unlikely to be altered. Those unofficial estimates maybe have it's own way to get the data. But the data produced by modern chinese statistics agency and the TGP company have a firm base and is responsalbe for the centrol government. We should trust them unless the unofficial estimate has a very clear way of gathering data and using the data.Calvingao 06:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

who has submitted the article???

Dear all i was really interasted to read an article about the three gorges dam, but actually what i found on wikipedia, it was an pro-american(anti-chinese) propaganda. I fully understand that Americans deem themselves the "best" country and they don't like to admit that Chinese with their "comunistic" regime may outrun them in the area of building the biggest dam. i also looked through the link to Hover dam , where none of the aspects that were reviewed in Three Gorges Dam were mentioned. Doesn't it seem ridiculous that nobody is concerned whether the electricity that hover dam is giving covers 4 or less percent of the US electricity demand. or the same greenhouse effect. i would say that the current article might be considered not informative but critical concerning the project. because when you read the article you get info only about the "bad" part of project. Thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.89.1.2 (talk) 09:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

Normal. Aran|heru|nar 04:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

A trend you can find on this Wikipedia or any decent reference for that matter is that old topics are not controversial. The United States could not build a dam on this scale today period. Political pressures are too great and megaprojects just don't have public support like they used to (except places like China where the leaders have the option of greatly ignoring resistance). Also, the Hoover dam was built in the desert - didn't displace any 3 million people. With both projects there were huge drawbacks as well as advantages. Anyone who writes with a specifically anti-Chinese or anti-American is an idiot, but taking the presence of large amounts of criticism in this article as an anti-Chinese disposition is not very smart either. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That's true. There are plenty of criticism about this dam. Much of them are just showing some angry without reliable research. I'm going to fix this article in the future by referencing Hoove Dam and Itaipu Dam. I will try to add more good side of the dam and eliminate those criticism which are not reliable.But I will keep the rest which tells the real story about the dam. Calvingao 05:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It's "Hoover". Not "hover" or "Hoove". Just wanted to point that out. - (I'll sign later) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.252.74.48 (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Relocation of people

The number of relocation of people is about 1.2 million to 1.3 million. It's not as big as 1.9 million as some westen media reported. For sure lot's of problems occured in relocating people, but if you want to cut the greenhouse gas emission and enjoy renewable energy,that's the problem you have to deal with.Calvingao 20:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the small blurb on the significant increase in the amount of people needing to be resettled? I only mention this because it's still being linked to from the news feed on the main page. I find the timing of this... removal of information quite interesting given it happened right as the 17th national ccp convention is going on. Any thoughts on why it was removed? Kyle.dionneclark 16:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Edits

There have been a number of edits but no one has tackled some of the neutrality issues. It could be a great article. Good pics. --Stormbay 17:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Can I use chinese sources

I can read chinese.My first language is Chinese. So can I use some artical in Chinese as sources? Because sometimes sources about this dam in detail is rare in English.Calvingao 06:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You can. It does not matter what language the sources are in. Mlewan 10:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Technical specifications in particular are great to get from more direct and often non-English sources because there's not anything disputable about them. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This article has been substantially vandalized

I restored the navigation section, which I worked hard on, about a year ago. But the vandalism occurred so long ago it is difficult to extricate, because other people seem to have made meaningful contributions, since then, and reverting to an older, prevandalism version will wipe them out. Geo Swan 06:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing

I'm making minor improvements to syntax, but I notice that many claims are not well-sourced. I'll give people some time to source, but I'll probably come back in a week and knock out anything that's not backed up.--Nick 00:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"Criticism" section aren't criticising

Kinda more "apologetic"-like. Can we at least get some citations? And how about the ather side of the argument? 124.82.13.154 10:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It seem like good old criticism to me. In fact, I think most of it is unwarranted consider they are problems for other dams too. More in fact, the dams that are already built on the same river suffer exactly the same type of problems on a smaller scale, and they survived. So I don't know why you might say it's "apologetic", except for being a POV troll. Also, yes I do think we should add both side of the argument like you suggested, the Chinese government's side that is! Since this whole section is pretty much one sided without pointing out what the government's response to such criticism or concerns are. No offense, but this is such a typical Wikipediaism! 24.89.245.62 06:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I feel the criticism section should be renamed to something like "Impact & Controversy" which is a similar heading to the chinese version of the page. Additionally, I'd suggest translating portions of that section that are missing from the English language version. It's on my list of things to translate (right now a short list). The Government Controversy section, specifically could add some useful information from the Chinese government's side. Stevendaniels88 03:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"Cost of the Dam" Section

The Cost of the Dam section is problematic because the first subsection actually deals with the monetary cost and the following subsections address the cost in a more symbolic sense, as in the "cost of living a life of crime." When we say that we don't mean the checkbook of a criminal, we mean the drawbacks and downside of living such a life.

For that reason, I'm going to move the information on $$ into the introductory paragraph, move the information on drawbacks and downsides into criticism, and delete the "Cost of the Dam" section altogether.

--Kangaru99 12:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

I think the article has come a long way in the last couple of months, and I'm going to remove the POV tags (aka the "neutrality is disputed" tags). The article seems neutral to me. Its more controversial claims have been verified or deleted. Specific complaints made on this talk page have been resolved. Of course, people may still feel that the article is not neutral, in which case they should re-tag it. But if you do this please also explain your reasons on the talk page, so we can do more to improve the article. --Kangaru99 13:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Potential infobox?

User:Theanphibian/foreign dam infoboxes - copied from Japanese version. Just an FYI. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Impact on Ecosystem

I have removed the first three sentences in this section.

"Chinese officials admitted in September 2007 that without preventative measures, the Three Gorges Project will result in an environmental "catastrophe".[21] The reservoirs of water created by dams alter the ecosystem and threaten certain species. The Chinese River Dolphin is already "functionally extinct".[22] The Chinese paddlefish is on the edge of extinction and will lose habitat and suffer divided populations (leading to post-zygotic speciation) due to dams such as this. "

The first sentence makes reference to an article which is almost certainly an Internet fabrication. No where can this explosive admission be found anywhere on than on an obscure English site. Within this piece, there is a link to an article by the same author (about rats) which is even more clearly fabricated. It reads like a piece from The Onion, yet is apparently intended to be taken seriously. Both articles quote mainstream British papers but make no links.

The second sentence makes reference to an article which does not even claim that The Gorges Dam has had anything to do with the state of the Chinese River Dolphin. The third makes vague claims about post-zygotic speciation will affect the paddlefish. Both species have been in danger of extinction since long before the dam was even started; the primary reason in both cases was overfishing.

The rest of section raises valid concerns.

Abegweut Abegweut 15:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Serious NPOV issues

The current article makes little sense in any aspect except for humor, and the ridiculous accusations are so repetitive that they actually sound dull, despite their absurdity. Most of the contributors who bother to come to the talk page seemed to have seen the problem, but the situation isn't getting any better. Every now and then a sinophobic wanders to this article and pretty much deletes everything he want and replacing them with pseudoscientific arguments with the sense of a third-grader. For one, simple matter, dams don't cause "environmental catastrophes" by pollution. This article is what is being polluted. Aran|heru|nar 13:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Area?

According to the article:

"The project will flood 632 square kilometers (395 square miles) of land to create a reservoir about 644 kilometers (400 miles) long by 112 kilometers (70 miles) wide."

These figures don't make sense to me. According to my caclulations, if the reservoir were rectangular, these dimensions would give an area of 72,128 square km. Even halving that to allow for odd shapes, that's still a couple orders of magnitude greater than 632 sq. km. What's up? Applejuicefool 16:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC) This is a good point of the project. It doesn't flood as much area as other megadams. The reservior is over 600km long when the water level is at 175km. However, since it is called the three goeges dam, the reservoir has lot's of narrow gorges where you increase the water level, it doesn't flood much. It is like a V shape river, not a broad U shape one.By the way, I don't trust those figures appears in mass media, they are not written by geologists.198.166.255.196 05:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

So are you saying that the shape of the reservoir is irregular enough to reduce the area from 72 THOUSAND square km to just 632? Try as I might, I can not wrap my head around what that reservoir would look like. It would have to be mostly just a little stream! Is that what we're talking about? Applejuicefool 13:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Numbers don't fit

"The project will flood 632 square kilometers (395 square miles) of land to create a reservoir about 644 kilometers (400 miles) long by 112 kilometers (70 miles) wide.[1]" i.e. its area will be 644 x 112 = 72128 sq. km - not 632 ???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.139.226.37 (talk) 16:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...I never would have noticed that. Applejuicefool 16:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

First, if those number make sense, your argue will be valid. However, the width of the reservior various a lot along the river, and it is not even close to a square, so it make no sense to do a square approximation. In addition, the river has lot's of branchs, talking about the width of the reservior doesn't make any sense. If it is 112 km wide, it will be much more visible in the satellite image than the one show in the article.Calvingao 05:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

According to the China Three Gorges Development Corporation's official site[4]: The reservoir is more than 600 km in length and 1.1 km in average width. The reservoir's surface area is 1084 sq km. --68.107.4.76 09:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Could this be a typo in the article, instead of 112 km it should be 1.12 km? Applejuicefool 16:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Picture repository

These are the best images I know of on the Commons, they may come in handy:

• 
  Three Gorges Dam, downstream side
• 
  Construction of main dam including cranes
• 
  Upstream side before filling
• 
  Inside a lock of the Three Gorges Dam
• 
  Locks under construction (view from above)

Model of dam:

• 
  Spillway view
• 
  Ship locks
• 
  South dam

-Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Introduction is bad

The introductory few paragraphs have been stuffed with so many numbers that the words are in danger of being squeezed out of existence. The introduction of an article is not the place to post every statistic in existence on a topic. I don't know anything about this dam, so I'll let someone else decide which of these numbers to pull out. Or, alternatively, I could just pull 90% of the numbers out and at least it would read better. --Xyzzyplugh 02:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I see that someone has de-numbered the intro. Good work. --Xyzzyplugh 15:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Reuters

There's a Reuters article (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSPEK6744820071114) about the dam that has useful information, but the article needs major cleanup first. Superm401 - Talk 11:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Insisting on errors

I tried to fix some clearly wrong information, but it was reverted:

Reservoir capacity is 39 cubic km OR 39 billion cubic meters; NOT 39 million cubic km!

1 cu km = 1 billion cu meters (1 km = 1000 meters; 1 square km = 1,000,000 square meters; 1 cubic km = 1,000,000,000 cubic meters)

Also, Catchment area = 1 million square km NOT 1083 square km. RESERVOIR area = 1083 sq km.

Catchment area is area within which rain fall flows into reservoir; NOT the surface area of the reservoir's lake!

68.12.168.97 (talk) 05:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggest you make the changes again, pointing to the talk in your edit summary. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 16:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

GA or FA attempt

Hey, I was just reading this article over and I noticed that it has improved much since I last looked at it. I think that the size is about perfect, the organization is really great, and it seems to present all sides of the issue well. There are lots of great images on the Commons, and I just went through and tried to improve the article a bit more with them.

It's still a B article right now, but I think it there are enough eyes looking at the article and it could pass a GA review with flying colors. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so projects under construction usually are not good candidates, but with the completions this month, it would seem that most of the important stuff is already finished, and the importance of the topic is indisputable. I may research the process and start a GA review soon. Note that this attained FA status in Vietnamese a while ago. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Added to the WP:GAN.Beagel (talk) 09:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of January 13, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Factually accurate?: There are still some unsourced statements. Here are some examples:

• The total electric generating capacity of the dam will reach 22,500 megawatts,
• The dam was originally envisioned by Sun Yat-sen in The International Development of China in 1919.
• During the planning stages in the 1990s, it was estimated that 1.13 million residents would be forced to relocate.
• The total capacity of those four dams is 38,500 MW, almost double the capacity of the Three Gorges.

Basically, any statistic or potentially controversial statement should be cited.

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass

This is an excellent article with great potential. My main (and perhaps only) concern is the shortage of references; be sure to cite any fact that isn't "obvious."

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Needs a better lead too. I wish people would read the guidelines. Three paragraphs would be a minimum here, probably even four.

References

For the GA status, the article needs better references. I put "citation needed" tag in places, where inline references are needed. Please help to find and add these missing references.Beagel (talk) 08:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have only one big question about those. Do the appearances in books really need citations? It is easy, as I have found, to simply look it up, find a review and verify the occurrence. But then are we going to put the review down as a reference? Wouldn't the proper thing to do be to reference the book itself? Then isn't putting this reference a trivial act? -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

By my understanding it's better to reference the book itself. Of course, in this case you need all information about book, including exact page numbers of citation.Beagel (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Like I was saying, it's within my abilities to verify if it occurred in the book or not. It probably will not be within my capabilities to find information like exact citations within the book. I might could leave a message to the editors who added them, but that's about all. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Great work so far. I'll try to add a few refs myself. Keep it up! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Promoted. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yangtze river dolphin

It says in the article that the dolphin will be negatively affected. Already happened, declared extinct. Hope someone else cares enough to change the article please. I am not wikieducated enough and get yelled at when I try and change stuff and it just gets changed back. Here is a reference. http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/newsenglish/witn/2007/08/070808_china_dolphin.shtml 71.217.137.120 (talk) 01:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Adam

You're right. The reason it used that wording is that we don't want to make any statements beyond what can conservatively be said the references state. And in fact, I was confused earlier about the different names and wasn't sure if it was the same organism that is now extinct - it appears it is. I edited it, but still tried to balance the wording. If you look at the Baiji article, it attributes the main cause to fishing and doesn't talk much about the dam. It isn't disputed that the dam contributed, but the events that caused it to happen took place over the last 60 or so years, so the dam's effect was like the last nail in the coffin.

Please tell me if my understanding isn't right, thanks! -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Current Project

I want to put a template saying that this is an ongoing project, information may change rapidly. Because there are still lot's of sources in English and Chinese saying that the total generating capacity is 18.2 GW.Who knows how to do it, please help me.Calvingao (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Map needed

This article seriously needs a map of the dam area itself, showing all the relevant locks, dam faces, and hydropower infrastructure.

Anyone up to it? 121.108.242.207 (talk) 02:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Map: I think it would be yes, but firstly the imformation in some parts is wrong. I have just watched a video about it and none of the information on here is the same. I know the video could be old but I think it is still vital to compare the old information to the new and resite figures. a.k.a the construction of the dam will be fully capable for 2009? not 2011...

Anyway, I have a link http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~lpohara/Pol%20116/Images/map3.jpg if someone can put that up, it be good...and have another section of "Site of Gorges dam" or something describing it and how many villages (4,000), towns (114) and cities (13)...it will submerge when the resevoir is built. METALFREAK04 (talk) 10:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

GA stus after article split

I split off a section into a Environmental issues with the Three Gorges Dam article and left a summary. There is some concern that it will affect the GA status. See Talk:Environmental issues with the Three Gorges Dam. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 20:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Spelling

fixed link --AndyCook (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

umm what? (Generator installation progress)

In the “Generator installation progress” it says The sixth generator in the south side (No. 17) started working on December 27, 2007.

But then later it says The seventh generator in the south side (No. 17) started working on December 18, 2007.

maybe i missed something, but... --AndyCook (talk) 13:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing to indicate this would be wrong. The numbers are generally given by when the decision was made, when construction was started, or physically where they are. It's not uncommon at all for a power station to have n-1 generator to come online before n generator. I'm not having much luck searching for something to back this up, but generally speaking, there shouldn't be real cause for suspicion. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it was a mistake when I was trying to add another generator when it started power. I fixed the problem before Theanphibian read the article.Calvingao (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"Contentious Beliefs about the Three Gorges Dam Project" isn't encyclopedic

IMHO the section of contentious beliefs looks like a trivia section, and it is also quite futile. Even though there might be a belief that "More than 4 million people have to be relocated due to the dam." oslt, I still oppose these kind of argument-refuting sections simply because the article itself should state the correct values and information, and if it does, there is no need for these kind of "explanatory corrections". There might be, if there was a serious debate going on about some information, but even in that case it shouldn't be so one-sided (it should state the arguments from both sides). Another thing that I want to point out in the article is that sections like enviromental impacts should not be merged with this article, simply because the article is very long as it is and it should be broken down into smaller and easier to read articles. --piksi (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
You are right. But I think there are still a lot of misconseptions about those issues, as simple as how many generators or what's its max capacity, how much % electricity can it produce in China.Calvingao (talk) 02:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree that the section is too much of 'trivia'. There are some things in it that are referenced and probably wouldn't hurt to cover in the article, but it probably needs to be reorganized into the rest of the article and be pruned of the things that are not referenced.

The environmental effects article has been entertaining the merge discussion, and I think that now an administrator needs to go declare the vote over and take action (if needed). -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

“The Three Gorges Dam caused the Sichuan earthquake.”

The title says the three gorges dam caused the Sichuan earthquake but then goes to disprove however there are no citations for any of the information which has been put? Any chance whoever added it can put their source with it?

Please can people cite their additions because articles loose their value if you dont.

<<Dave>> 14:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC) I agree with you and I myself didn't hear a lot of news saying that Three Gorges Dam coursed the earth quake.Calvingao (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sedimentation should be moved into "Environmental issues with the Three Gorges Dam"

Because it is a kind of environmental issue. Do you think so?Calvingao (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

As it currently stands it is more of an economic argument than environmental. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Flood control and drought relief section

This section has no mention of drought relief, and so either the content or the title of this section should be changed. Frodo 11011 (talk) 10:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Direct reduction of air pollutant and greenhouse gas emission

The article claims, due to the dams output, 31 million tonnes of coal will not have to be burned thus saving 100 million tonnes of carbon emmisions. How does 31 million tonnes of coal turn into 100 million tonnes of gas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.135.238 (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Therefore, the Three Gorges Dam will potentially reduce the coal consumption by 31 million tonnes per year, cutting the emission of 100 million tonnes of greenhouse gas

this is B.S...

How many tonnes of Green house gas do you think will generate if you burn 31 tonnes of coal?Calvingao (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC) Assuming coal is 100% carbon and combusts completely, a quick bit of chemical equation balancing yields 113.5 milliontonnes of CO2 from 31million tonnes of coal. So not B.S. Chemical elements combine on a molar basis not on a mass basis. 81.106.218.66 (talk) 12:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Very negative things that seem to be left out or hidden.

Compare the Panama Canal to the three Gorges dam in this aspect: • 4.3 million -- cubic meters of concrete needed to build the Panama Canal • 26.4 million -- cubic meters of concrete needed to build the Three Gorges Dam

Number of cracks so far: • 80 -- number of cracks, up to 8 feet in depth, that have appeared in the Three Gorges Dam since its construction

Number of people against it (well educated): • 53 -- number of engineers and other experts in China who in 2000 urged their country's government to rethink its plans to push ahead with the Three Gorges Dam2

Comparing the atrocities of it: • 16,000* -- number of Native Americans who were forced to abandon their homes and land in the infamous Trail of Tears emigration of 1838 • 1,900,000 -- number of Chinese citizens who could ultimately be forced to abandon their homes and land because of the building of the Three Gorges Dam 4 • 40 -- percentage of farmers displaced by the Three Gorges Dam who will not receive land in compensation, according to current plans 5 • 40 -- percentage of migrant laborers displaced by the dam thus far who have failed to find replacement jobs in factories 6

And what happens if you think their government is wrong: • 10 -- number of months journalist Dai Qing was jailed for stating her opinion that the Three Gorges Dam would prove to be "the most environmentally and socially destructive project in the world" 7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.143.52.66 (talk) 12:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
If you can provide reliable sources, please add those information into the article.68.148.25.191 (talk) 05:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Congratulation for the chinese.

This dam is wondefull.My congratulation for the chinese.Agre22 (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)agre22

This is the best dam ever!

Does anyone else get the impression that this article has been edited to sound far more positive than is necessary?

Critical Info (talk) 22:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think so, why should an Engineering project article sounds negative? Go read Hoover Dam, Itaipu Dam, do they sounds negative?Calvingao (talk) 01:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the original poster. In the opening section, the article states "The project produces clean electricity, prevents deadly floods downstream and enhances navigation". This seems opinionated, and debatable at best. It is telling that there are no references to back up these claims.--Sdcoonce (talk) 10:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Theses claims are just summeries of the article.Calvingao (talk) 02:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No kidding. I fail to see how a dam could possibly "enhance navigation", that's like saying building a wall across a highway enhances navigation by providing detour signs. Taking it out. Someone with more knowledge should check the other, uncited claims though.

I don't think it is controversial that the hydroelectric dam provides electricity without releasing pollutants, and the same paragraph also summarizes negative impacts of the dam. In the body the claim about flood control is "verified" by citation [5] which is evidently a mirror of an outdated (and even more rah-rah) version of this Wikipedia article, and useless for verification. <eleland/talkedits> 06:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hydroelectric dams cause inundated vegetation to decay, which produces harmful greenhouse gases, which then enter the atmosphere when the water is released through the dam outlets, aerating it and causing the gas bubbles to escape. So I find reason to support that the project doesn't produce completely clean electricity. This applies for all hydroelectric dams (unless they're located in the desert where there is little vegetation, like Hoover Dam.) Shannon1^{talk contribs} 19:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

see Hydroelectricity#Greenhouse gas emissions for detail. The Three Gorges was a pretty vegetated environment, as far as I know, and was also heavily agricultural.Shannon1^{talk contribs} 19:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

In the long run, those threes will die anyway, so the total emission in that region will be the same with or without the dam. Building a dam is different from digging coal out of ground and burn it. Three gorges dam flooded very small amount of land comparing to other dams, such as Churchill Fall Dam, which flooded 10 times more land than TGD. Also, the amount of GHG saved by the dam is much more than the GHG released in the reservoir. Plus, most of the vegetation was clearned and removed before flooding and the remaining was pick up on the way downstream.Calvingao (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

More pictures and plans needed.

This massive project is hard to visualize. I need diagrams of the layout of the dam and its internal structures. Lots more pictures are needed also.Pasado (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

See here. (May want to add as a link in the article.)] Shannon1^{talk contribs} 23:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Political Issue

What is the political risk occur on the three gorges dam project?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesjr (talk • contribs) 07:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Photoshopped picture

Picture "Three Gorges Dam, upstream side, 26 July 2004" looks heavilly photoshopped, best seen at the "shifting" telephone / electricity mast — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.57.60.208 (talk) 10:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

That is photoshoped for sure, can someone remove this?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.154.12 (talk) 02:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It is photoshopped only in the sense that it has been stitched together from a series of photographs to form a panorama, which, the last time I checked, is still an allowable action.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.5.87 (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Lifespan request

Official and (various groups) predictions are both missing, though they look like they were there once supposed to be in the flood section. Can anyone fix this? mr_happyhour 04:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Plagarism

I don't know if I'm wrong, but it appears that many parts of the page are a copypaste from this website.

themaee 21:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
That webpage plagarised this article from wikipedia. Calvingao (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't realize that. themaee 02:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Just stumbled on my old comment - I just realized that if the site takes its content from here, then why is the article citing it? (It is reference 11, which is cited around 10 times in the article.) Shannon1^{talk contribs} 19:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

All fixed, thanks to point them out.Calvingao (talk) 18:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Various issues with the lede

"Splashy" quotes from Discovery Channel TV documentaries are generally not useful in an encyclopedic context; this is particularly true when dealing with a very serious topic for which there is a wealth of excellent documentation. If someone's opinion must be quoted, quote a major Chinese leader or news source (and in fairness, this would probably necessitate quoting a prominent opponent of the dam, if the other opinion is favorable.) Thus, I have removed the business about "spectacular modern monument to economic progress" and the like. Most of the content I removed appeared to be calculated to make the dam look like a wonderful thing, such as "the dam generated more electricity than all wind turbines in the US" and "sufficient to light up Boston, New York and Washington D.C. combined." With respect, we do not use such analogies to illustrate the number of persons displaced or the value of cultural sites submerged - nor should we - the point is to give information, not dazzle the reader. Also, links to illegal fansubs on YouTube violate WP:EL.

In addition, please make an effort to follow Wikipedia formatting conventions. The placement of multiple images, side by side, one fixed at a very large width, completely ruined the layout even on my widescreen monitor; I shudder to think how it would have looked at 800x600, which many of our readers are still using. <Br /> shouldn't be used to create paragraphs breaks, either, and punctuation belongs before the <ref tag, not after.

As a general comment, I would like to remind all editors that their personal views about the proper course of China's economic development are best left at the door when editing this article. <eleland/talkedits> 03:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
You deleted the stuff I added. BUT I agree with what you said. Do you think we need more basic information in the introduction?Calvingao (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Lots of weasel words

Just saying, there's a ton of them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.202.164 (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

A project lay out photo needed

The photo I uploaded was deleted. Anybody has one that describes the lay out of the project? Thanks!Calvingao (talk) 01:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

References

I suppose there are too many bare URL's for GA in the references section. Shannon1^{talk contribs} 17:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Generation Capacity Miscalculations?

Three Gorges Dam annual power output

In the introduction section, the dam is listed as having 32 main generators at 700 MW each. This would bring its total "main" generation capacity up to 22,400 MW. However, it is stated later in the paragraph that with the addition of 6 more generators the total will be 22,500 MW. Also, the image at right (from the article) shows that the current generation capacity is somewhere around 18,250 MW or so. This leads me to conclude that some numbers somewhere are off or miscalculated. If you were to believe that the number 18,250 is more accurate, that would mean each of the 32 generators (assuming they all produce the same output, which the article does imply), produces approximately 570 MW, a very large difference from 700 MW. Percyhanna (talk) 01:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The difference is the two 5 MW each small generators that powers the plant itself. Currently, the plant has only 26 main generators, with the additional 6 still under construction. Thus, its capacity is at 18300 MW instead of 22500 MW. If this is not clear in the section "Electrical power generation and distribution", please let me know. Calvingao (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Sentences: "Currently, it contains 32 main generators, each with a capacity of 700 MW. Six additional generators in the underground power plant are being installed and are not expected to become fully operational until around 2011." are not clear and can be read as 32+6 (and not 26+6). Please rephrase the lead. --78.108.106.253 (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I did some rewording, I think it reads better.--NortyNort (talk) 05:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Dam Height

Is the dam really 101 meters tall? I am seeing 181 and mostly 185 on of the web. It also does look a lot taller. --NortyNort (talk) 13:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

good point. Where do the 101 metres come from? It is only mentioned in Wikipedia, also in the German version. No other source mentions this height. There would be the possibility that 185 metres is the height above sea level, and 101 the height above ground. But, a dam of 101 metres would unlikely become the largest in the world.... However- can somebody please check that???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.33.71.5 (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I set the height at 185 which appears to be the most common from good sources. --NortyNort (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The height of 101 m (which is definitely wrong) and the length of 2309 m appear to come from an article of 2006 by International Rivers (http://www.internationalrivers.org/node/356) and the Fact Sheet referred to therein (http://www.internationalrivers.org/files/3Gorges_FINAL.pdf). A member of the Chinese National Committee on Large Dams wrote that it is a mass concrete gravity dam with a height of 181 m (http://www.chincold.org.cn/news/li080319-jjs.pdf) and at the same conference, another member mentioned it to be 185 m high (http://www.chincold.org.cn/newsview-en.asp?s=3001). However, I found only two sources which appear to be reliable from a purely technical point of view: J. Akkermann/Th. Runte/D. Krebs, Ship lift at Three Gorges Dam, China – design of steel structures, a special reprint from: Steel Construction 2 (2009), No. 2. Krebs and Kiefer, Consulting Engineers, have a share in the design of the ship lift and thus know what they are talking about. The paper contains a nice vertical section with elevations. The other source is a report by a group of the German National Committee on Large Dams (Talsperrenkomitee) (http://talsperrenkomitee.de/info/index.cgi/page/tgp_exkursion). Even without any knowledge of German, the vertical sections in the third quarter of the paper provide reasonable information. It is obvious from these drawings that all elevations are elevations above sea level: The foot of the ship lift is not at zero, but at 48.00 (meters above sea level). The downstream water is shown at a low level of 62 and at a high level of 83.20 m a.s.l. In the top position of the ship chamber, the water level is at 175 m a.s.l. Now, 175 - 62 = 113, the highest lift of the installation which is referred to in the text as well. In the German paper, the dam crest is shown at 185, the highest water level at 180.4 and the operating water levels between 175 and 145 (the 30 m difference mentioned in the article on the ship lift). The drawing does not indicate the elevation of the foot, but it is clear that the zero level would be well below the drawing. It appears that the foot is at some 41 m a.s.l. Now, 185 - 41 = 144 m which might be an indication of the actual height, if one does not take the additional depth of 20 m for the power plant into account. The final remark in the German paper says that TGP definitely is the largest dam by way of installed generation capacity, but not by any other criteria (construction volume, volume of reservoir, height or length). Surprisingly, the remark talks about the max. retention level of 175 m which normally means the water level measured from the bottom of the reservoir. --AHert (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Bridge ID link in sidebar links to unrelated article

The Bridge ID link points to the page about National Bridge Inventory, which is an article about the US NBI, which from the article:

"The National Bridge Inventory (NBI) is a database, compiled by the Federal Highway Administration, with information on all bridges and tunnels in the United States that have roads passing above or below."

Obviously nothing to do with bridges in China, or anywhere outside the US, this link should either point to a generic page describing Bridge ID numbers worldwide, or a page discussing Bridge ID numbers in China.

--118.92.137.108 (talk) 22:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Generator installation progress

I just went through and corrected the grammar in the generator installation progress section. While doing this, the question arose of whether we should be including the start dates of all of the generators on the south side. The issue being that since the entire south side powerhouse is in operation, it is not so interesting when each of the generators was brought into operation, with the exception of the plant passing Itaipu, which was a significant date.

I did not remove the start-up dates, and instead only improved the grammar, but in my opinion, the first and final generators should be included as well as the record breaking generator. The others should be removed so that the format matches that for the north side powerhouse.Gregzore (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I suggest to make the change as you said but keep the info of each generator online in a table, maybe try to find the ones for the 14 generators in the north side.Calvingao (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, and a table would be a good way of skipping a lot of extra text.Gregzore (talk) 21:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Criticms section unnecessary

It could and should be merged with the rest of the article. For example most of it could be merged into "Environmental contribution of the dam" and that section be named "Environmental impact of the dam". The first half of the article reads like a press release from Beijing and the Criticisms section the opposite. It would be a better article if they were blended together to present a neutral perspective throughout rather than a very positive and a very negative one depending on which half you read.

Personally, I think it is an awesome piece of engineering, but I still would have preferred a balanced rather than divided article, especially as it lends itself to that structurally. 82.132.136.201 (talk) 20:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Acording to the article, there's probably about 1.2 million people that disagree with you.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.198.32.36 (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I am sure the hundreds of millions of people living downstream of dam, whose lives are actually affected by flooding every year, will disagree with you instead.76.199.2.88 (talk) 00:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Three Gorges Dam/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA article with the most cleanup tags: dead external links from December 2008, needing clarification from June 2009, unsourced statements from March, May, July and August 2008. Tom B (talk) 13:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Shall we just remove unsourced statements? Dead links I can deal with, that's no problem.Calvingao (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Most of them are cleaned up.I would like to improve it and keep it as a good article.Calvingao (talk) 15:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It is best to try and source statements unless they look as though have been made up and won't have sources. Also we don't use contractions - i.e. don't, couldn't, they're - in formal English unless it's part of a quotation. I would go back and compare to the version promoted to GA in early 2008 to check nothing valuable has been deleted or changed incorrectly since then. There seemed to be consensus for a merge but given no one did this and it's now over a year later, i wouldn't feel obliged to do it, you could simply remove tag and see if people still have the same opinion in which case they can help you. i don't mind if someone else closes this reassessment once most of the issues have been resolved, though i recommend you get someone to check the article if i'm not available, try Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment. Tom B (talk) 18:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

September 2009

I've gone through and done a major cleanup of the article. Frankly there was a lot of pidgin English and style problems, but I think it's a lot better now. Is it going to be nominated as a good article? Because it seems good to me (a couple of missing citations notwithstanding). -Jordgette (talk) 05:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

the article is already listed as a good article, the purpose of this reassessment is to resolve problems with the article in order to maintain it as a good article. thanks for cleanup. As you indicate it has missing citations, 4, it also has a deadlink and a [vague] statement about what the bridge carries i.e. it still needs cleanup. It has been almost 4 weeks since the reassessment was initiated, progress has been made but if the remaining problems aren't fixed then it will have to be delisted, if anyone gets a chance to cleanup that would be good Tom B (talk) 20:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Compare with Hoover Dam

In the article we can't read too much about the other Dams in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by China Dialogue Net (talk • contribs) 09:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Copy-edits

Feedback welcome. Lfstevens (talk) 20:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Lfstevens, thanks for the copyedits. This article is on my list of things to do. You helped out a lot.--NortyNort (talk) 09:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Dam Photo - NASA

The June 2010 NASA photo appears to be upside down and flipped left to right. maps.google.com shows the upstream coming from the NW and the downstream going NE. See: http://maps.google.com/maps?source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=three+gorges+dam,+china&sll=30.503117,116.894531&sspn=0.974974,1.760559&ie=UTF8&hq=three+gorges+dam,+china&radius=15000.000000&split=1&hnear=&ll=30.834446,111.017876&spn=0.121455,0.22007&t=h&z=12 In addition, the 2009 June NASA photo orientation at: File:Three Gorges Dam, China.jpg [[6]] agrees with maps.google.com The photos of the Model of the Three Gorges Dam in the Layout and scale section at: [[7]] agrees with the 2009 photo and with the Google map reference above. See the bridge on the downstream side of the dam. Could someone correct the photo orientation. SBaker43 (talk) 05:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about the [[Image:Three Gorges Dam, China.jpg|April 2009 image]]? This looks like the only satellite image on the page. Since it is a satellite image, it doesn't have to be oriented north. Doing such would reduce the area captured.--NortyNort (talk) 11:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Ship lift section

The ship lift is a major failure, something that the article glosses over, to say the least. It should be explained why the original plans were abandoned (design engineering incompetence, as I understand it), and how the loss of the original plan impacts the region commercially. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This article needs a lot of work. If you have a good source and knowledge, place it in there.--NortyNort (Holla) 07:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

That's why I posted here. I know nothing about 3GD that I haven't heard on the Discovery or Science Channels. :-) HuskyHuskie (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

GA?

I'm just revisiting this article after a long time away and notice it is not a GA anymore. Yet it seems to have broad coverage and plenty of references, although I gather from the above comment that some sections need work. Is there any interest in re-instating this article to GA? Johnfos (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

NortyNort or Rehman: Would you care to comment... Johnfos (talk) 02:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I missed your first comment; probably drowned in a surge of bot edits on my watchlist. I think going for GA is a great idea for such a popular topic. I'm actually quite interested to aim for FA. NortyNort seems quite busy with real life matters; I hope he'll join soon, he's quite good with dams. But I must say, I am working half days, so I will try my best to help wherever I can. Warm regards. Rehman 09:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, I have been overwhelmed at work. Soon, I will be gone for ten days without any way of getting on the 'pedia. Thanks for the talk page ping Rehman. After Grand Coulee Dam, which is close to FA, Three Gorges was on my list of future projects and I placed it on the WikiProject Dams to-do list for those interested. This was a GA and according to the reassessment, its redemption may have fell through the cracks. Seemed to be a lot of sourcing issues. A lot of good info is Chinese which I don't know. I remember the height of the dam was woefully inaccurate and a bit difficult to verify earlier this year. I don't think it is too far from an GA now and would make an awesome one. It would make a great FA too and is in a category lacking FAs. The biggest problem I can see is a it being well-rounded (researched) and having good sourcing, per the FA criteria. I found a good source here] a month or two ago I planned to use. The historical portion is great and can be better expanded, John L. Savage is my favorite engineer. Some books would be good and maybe critical too for the FA. I still think GA is achievable and I can help out this weekend before I head out. What do you guys think needs work?--NortyNort (Holla) 11:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi NortyNort and Rehman. Thanks for your helpful replies. I've read through the article and done some copyediting and removed a few unsourced paragraphs. Overall the article looks quite good to me and I've been bold and submitted it at GAN. Hope this is ok with you. This could be a steppingstone to FAC. Johnfos (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, sounds neat. I will look it over this weekend. It may be a week or two before a review begins.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Floods, agriculture, and industry

What evidence is there to the claim that the area directly adjacent to the Yangtze is "China's most important industrial area"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.32.37 (talk) 09:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from MBMayhem, 8 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} The Three Gorges Dam project was featured in the 1997, BBC TV series, "Full Circle" with Michael Palin, where he travels, by ferry, parts of the gorge yet to be flooded. He also ascends a 100 foot ship lock and muses the effects of the flooding the entire area. See: [8]. MBMayhem (talk) 12:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

What is the change you're proposing? Rehman 12:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the IPuser was proposing that be added to the article. I added it in brief, seems to be a notable documentary and person.--NortyNort (Holla) 00:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Three Gorges Dam/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The prose isn't very good. It's quite terse and technical, not especially readable and does not always explain things very well. See the full list of problems below. Update: the main problems with the prose have been fixed. Now it is good enough for GA.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The article is well supplied with inline citations. I did found some unreliable sources (see the list of problems below). Unfortunately since I cannot read Chinese, I could not verify the facts which had Chinese-language sources, but I did not spot any facts which would be obviously wrong based on my knowledge on other sources. There a lot of Chinese-language sources; it would be nice if more English sources would be used instead. Since the subject is well known, these should not be too hard to find. Update: unreliable sources have been removed and some English refs added for important claims.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   No problems here.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   There were some potentially controversial facts which were cited to the website of one of the involved companies. These sources should be replaced by third-party sources. Update: fixed.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall: This is a very good article except for the prose. It covers all the important aspects. It is neutral and visually pleasing. But I believe there are a lot of problems with the prose, and there were also some bad references. Please see the list of problems below. Update: the prose and references have been fixed. All clear now!

   Pass/Fail:

Reviewer: Nanobear (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing. I agree with most of your suggestions and have started making a few improvements. Johnfos (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Have worked on the prose, clarified some points, and added a few more English language references to address suggestions made. Johnfos (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

List of some specific problems and improvement suggestions:

Lead

• only exceeded by Itaipu Dam, Brazil and Paraguay's electricity-generating plant - I think "Brazil and Paraguay's" is not a good expression. It should be something like "...Itaipu Dam, located on the border between Brazil and Paraguay."
• The ref used for the claim It is the world's largest electricity-generating plant (industcard.com) does not seem to be reliable. Or can someone explain why it would be reliable? Surely you can find a better reference for such a claim than some photo site. Also, what exactly does "largest" mean here? This should be clarified.
• when the 26th generator in the shore plant - what "shore plant"?
• Coupling the dam's thirty-two main generators with two smaller generators (50 MW each) to power the plant itself, the total electric generating capacity of the dam will eventually reach 22.5 GW - this is a confusing sentence. Could you reword it in some other way please? If the two smaller generators are used to power the plant itself, why is their capacity included in the total generating capacity? I thought the "generating capacity" of a power plant usually means its net production.

No. Total generating capacity usually refers to combined maximum installed capacity of the turbines. Net production refers to the actual amount of electricity produced over a particular time period, such as a year. Johnfos (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• increases the river's shipping capacity - here, I think "the river" should be replaced with Yangtze River for clarity. The river was previously mentioned only once, so it's not an ugly repetition.

Changes made on each of the above points. Johnfos (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

History

• The dam was originally envisioned by Sun Yat-sen - this needs some clarification. Why is the dam envisioned by Yat-sen the same as the topic of this article? Perhaps you should rather write: "A dam on the Three Gorges was first envisioned by..."
• During the 1980s, the idea reemerged. - perhaps this needs some clarification too. What idea? Please reword a bit.
• The poem quote - can you please indicate why this is notable? It needs at least some kind of explanation.
• (the ship lift is further out, in 2014.) - This doesn't sound very good, please rephrase.

Changes made. Johnfos (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Layout and scale

• The project used 200,000 cubic metres (300,000 cu yd) of concrete - used for what? Please clarify.

Clarified. Johnfos (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Economics

• When finished, the project is expected to have cost 180 billion yuan, 12% under budget - I think for massive projects like this, going under budget is pretty rare. It's an exceptional claim, and therefore it would good if there was a third-party source (preferably in English) to support it. The current source used is China Three Gorges Corporation, which may not be completely neutral.

Fixed. Claim could not be verified in any other sources. Johnfos (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Generators

• Here is a video animation of the Three Gorges Dam generators. - I don't think this is good style. I think the convention is to put things like this in the external links.

Yes, fixed. Johnfos (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Generator installation progress

• The underground power plant and its six generators, were still under construction as of December, 2008 - 2008 was 2 years ago. I think this definitely needs an update.
• Shouldn't the material in this belong rather belong to the history chapter?

Updated. I really think this material is fine where it is, as the History section provides general background information. Johnfos (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Output milestones

• Same here, this should be integrated to history, unless there's a very good reason for keeping it separate. I'm not seeing anything that would prevent it from being integrated to history.

I think you would expect the Output milestones to be near the end of the article, not up front. Johnfos (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Floods, agriculture, industry

• The most significant function of the dam is to control flooding - is this really true? One would think power generation is the "most significant function" of the dam.

Changed wording to "An important function". Johnfos (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Locks

• The installation of ship locks is intended to increase river shipping from ten million to 100 million tonnes annually - this is a bit confusing. How exactly are the shiplocks related to the dam? (A layman will not know). Why exactly will installing them increase river shipping? This is unclear. One possible interpretation is that building the dam reduced shipping, and now building the ship locks will increase it again, but this is probably not correct. Is it only the installation of ship locks that will increase shipping, or is it dam plus ship locks? Please clarify.

This image and the associated caption, presented early in the article, shows how the ship locks are related to the dam. Text also clarified. Johnfos (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• Each of the two ship locks - please change this to something like "There will be two shiplocks installed near the dam. Both of them are made of..." It's not correct to just say "the two ship locks" when the two ship locks have not yet been mentioned in text.

Changed. Johnfos (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

In popular culture

• I believe this section should be removed per WP:TRIVIA. I'm not sure why the mention of the dam in the novels World War Z or Dragon Bones is notable and relevant. The same goes for all the other items in the list. If you wish to keep this section, then it should at least have some kind explanation why each item is notable.

Yes, removed. Johnfos (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

External links

• There are many links here which could be just as well used as sources. I'm not sure why the BBC News links are especially notable or interesting, for example. I think the EL section should be mainly for stuff like links to the homepages of relevant companies and government agencies, links to important expert reports or academic papers about the project, etc. I believe most of the current links should be removed.

Removed old external links which added little. Johnfos (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I think these problems should be fixed before the article is passed. Nanobear (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Have worked on the prose, clarified some points, and added a few more English language references to address suggestions made. Johnfos (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I was impressed with how quick the problems were fixed. The article seems now to be good enough for GA. Great work overall. Nanobear (talk) 11:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Height of the dam

I know we visited this issue last year but I want to bring it back up because I am still unsure. Also, after looking at the Three Gorges Dam on the other Wikipedias, it seems the world is confused as well. Currently, based off of the source in the article, we have the height as 185m, zh.Wikipedia has it as 101m. I looked up some official sources (Three Gorges Corp.), (CHINCOLD) and I think it is 181m. See here (Chinese), here and even here too. It seems the crest elevation is 185m and the maximum height is 181. That would mean there is only 4m of room between the foundation of the dam and sea level. I don't doubt that 101m is what is exposed above the river bed and the foundation is that deep. The water levels of the dam, 174m ASL, etc. give that impression. I was curious if anyone had more knowledge about the dam or maybe could read Chinese (I used Google translate). Otherwise, I feel comfortable changing the height to 181m.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Add to "Dams in China" category

This article probably should be added to the category "Dams in China". JeffMather (talk) 12:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Rehman 03:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Construction disambulation

Just wondering - there's written that the dam was constructed by using 200,000 m3 of concrete. This fact is linked to http://www.ibiblio.org/chinesehistory/contents/07spe/specrep01.html#Quick%20Facts where there's written the concrete which was used was 27,5 million cubic meters. Why's that then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damiankrol (talk • contribs) 11:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that, I made the changes. It definitely isn't 200k. I think the the wrong number was pulled out of the source, 200,000 referred to the concrete cofferdam they blew.--NortyNort (Holla) 15:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting summary

There is a long news article here [9] in the asian times - the second page [10] has some reference material too. Might be a useful resource for anyone planning to expand this article. EdwardLane (talk) 09:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Updated in Last Six Months??? Mostly 2009 data needs input

Articles that cannot be edited by the general wiki users must be editedupdated frequently by the masters of the universe (i.e. whoever takes upon themselves the keys to the kingdom). The dam is entering into the final testing of the last of the 32 turbines and yet this article seems not to have been updated since at least 2010 and in many cases since 2008. Any Google of the dam gives much new info (and accurate dates) re the launch. Few cites are later than 2009, with some retreivals bein nov 2010.

Thanks for being the editor but do the job or pass it to someone who will. That's not nasty or personal, it's how WP must work. Examples: "additional generators are expected to delay full operation until about 2011" "The dam had raised the water level to 172.5 meters (566 ft) as of the end of 2008" "By the end of 2008, spending had reached 148.365 billion yuan" "The underground power plant and its six generators are expected to be completed by 2012" Note: in fact those last six generators are done and testing NOW.

75.83.32.158 (talk) 03:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers. I made some updates and I am sure more will be needed soon when the power plant is fully up and running. A lot of the information is in the 2000s because most of the structure was completed then. Nonetheless it needs some more updating. As an evolving encyclopedia, it is tough to stay on top of a lot of articles. If engineering is your interest, you are welcome to create an account and help out.--NortyNort (Holla) 07:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The article needs updating. It says "Six additional turbines in the underground power plant are not expected to become fully operational until mid-2011." That was around 8 months ago. Stopde (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Quite a few updates are made after the last generator went online.Calvingao (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought the test run for the last generator ended May 23rd but it wasn't fully commissioned yet?--NortyNort (Holla) 01:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Additional Turbines

Quoted from the introduction, "Six additional turbines in the underground power plant are not expected to become fully operational until May 2011." Have the turbines been completed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zelytic (talk • contribs) 12:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't confirm, I know one of the six is operational. I think the drought and controversy with the dam recently may have slowed the timeline. I tweaked it to "mid-2011" and will keep an eye out.--NortyNort (Holla) 14:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

All 6 turbines are online as of May 2012. Calvingao (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from Alcartur, 20 June 2011

Three Gorges Dam is the second largest in generation power, despect the higher number of generators and installed capacity. The Paraná River hydrology it's more favorable, and the year by year amount of power generated it's higher in Itaipu Dam.[1]

Itaipu Dam is the largest operating hydroelectric facility in terms of annual generating capacity, generating 94.7 TWh in 2008, reaching his record, and 91.6 TWh in 2009, while the annual generating capacity of the Three Gorges Dam was 80.8 TWh in 2008 and 79.4 TWh in 2009.[2] On 26 October 2010, Three Gorges Dam has reached his annual record in power-generation capacity of 84.7 TWh.[3] During the same year, Itaipu Dam has generated 85,970TWh.

[1] - http://www.itaipu.gov.br/en/energy/production-year-year [2] - http://www.itaipu.gov.br/en/energy/energy [3] - http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-10/26/c_13575583.htm

Alcartur (talk) 03:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I made two tweaks in the article regarding generation vs. capacity of Three Gorges/Itaipu. Three Gorges is getting close to generating more though...soon enough.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

thanks for your quick answer, i've made a few implements in my previows request :) Alcartur (talk) 03:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I made a few more changes, particularly in the lead. I don't think it would be good to make much of the comparison in the article but it is good to clarify and note the difference. Thanks for the comment and recommendation.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Surface area of the reservoir

The article states that the length of the reservoir is 600 km and that the average width is 1.1 km. However, the article also states that the surface area is 1.045 sq km instead of 660 sq km which the aforementioned information suggests. How is this possible?

Length and area are different. I didn't do the math but it seems plausible a 600km long reservoir could have around 1000 km2 of surface area.--NortyNort (Holla) 23:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 July 2012

grammatical correction..... I think the second paragraph, first sentence is wrong... it should not read ".....last of the 32th main turbine in the underground...." I think it needs to be re-phrased.

142.104.153.52 (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Please say what you want it changed to. RudolfRed (talk) 23:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)