 | This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Winnipeg may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Untitled
editThis article says:
-
- It is the eleventh-largest freshwater lake on Earth.
Is that in terms of surface area, or volume, or something else? By surface area, I think Lake Superior is the largest, but by volume, Lake Baikal is bigger because it is very deep, and so contains more water than Lake Superior. So it makes a difference which way you measure it. Michael Hardy 03:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
The article uses the word "pristine" three times in the opening paragraphs despite the fact that Lake Winnipeg is in severe crisis with many experts predicting it could be a dead lake within as little as ten years. The lake is suffering from extreme algae blooms due to the excessive amounts of phosphorus entering the lake. Little is mentioned of this fact which makes for a very incomplete article. Also how about some decent photos, including at least one of the North Basin? --142.161.155.159 (talk) 02:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Do HDR photos belong on Wikipedia?
editThis article features an extremely unrealistic HDR photo. Is it appropriate for such photos to be used in an "encyclopaedia"? --24.224.255.154 (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Algae population and pollution
editThis portion of the article seems to have been copied verbatim from some sort of report with no references contained within the writing. Bubbledhs (talk) 06:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. It appears to be a copy-and-paste from an essay, or school paper of some sort. There are references at the bottom on the inserted text, but not cited specifically. Further, the text needs cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Formatting, spelling, copy-editing are needed, and also some fact-checking and improvement. I have added a cleanup template to the section, and I will do some cleanup today. Feel free to help out, Bubbledhs! —fudoreaper (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
This section should be removed.
This section is not verifiable!
This section exhibits blatant plagerism!
The editors the "Algae population and pollution" section of this aritcle have exhibited very poor norms required for basic journalism. 66.43.253.135 (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Sections deleted
editA section copied from [1] was removed as were all suspected copy pasted sections put in on June 2, 2014.-- Kayoty (talk) 08:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)