Talk:Whitefish Energy

unreliable sources

Ahnoneemoos (talk · contribs) - you marked four sources as unreliable. Can you give your concerns?

• utilitydive: industry-specific journal. Used as a reference on ~100 articles. utilitydive.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• The Spokesman-Review. Legit daily newspaper. spokesman.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• PR Newswire. Primary source, but backed up by other sources. prnewswire.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• Environment & Energy Publishing. Pretty legit. eenews.net: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

tedder (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'm fine with The Spokesman and E&E. Let's remove the PRNewsWire piece since that info seems to be supported by a reliable third party already. Not sure how the reliabiltiy of utilitydive can be established. Can you present other arguments? WP:SOURCE says it must have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." How can we establish that for that source? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

utilitydive is used in many other places- not that that's a full endorsement- but I suspect any facts found there can be found elsewhere too. I'd prefer to leave the prnewswire source per WP:PRIMARY because it doesn't have any "spin"/reanalysis. tedder (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• These are reliable sources.Oceanflynn (talk) 15:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Company Registrations and Alternative Registrations

Please move these items to the talk page if they are going to be deleted from the article. This information is not easy to find and source but it may be of interest as this current story unfolds.Oceanflynn (talk) 15:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

POV + Essay issues

The way this article is written makes it appear to be slanted towards one side. In addition, parts of this article are written like a highschooler writing an essay.

Some examples of what I mean:

The last line from the 6th paragraph under 'Hurricane Maria controversies' reads:

"Well-known Fortune 500 global engineering firm Fluor Corporation also received a rebuild contract; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers contract was for $240M,[18][19] $60M less than tiny Whitefish's contract."

The fourth paragraph under 'Hurricane Maria controversies' reads:

"A third reason for labeling the contract as unusual was that PREPA chose Whitefish rather than using their mutual aid agreements with mainland utilities. But Ramos explained that Whitefish did not require a $25 million tender as the other bidder did.[10] PREPA's emergency fund had only $100 million, which Ramos feared would be quickly exhausted if he hired another public utility to assist with repairs.[11] Furthermore, PREPA's mutual aid agreements required the utility company to undertake the logistics of housing workers and transporting materials to the island, while Whitefish's contract did not."

The obvious issue, the fact that this sounds like an essay trying to convince me of something, is apparent.

I would clean this all up myself but don't have enough time to do the research into it, so I'm making note of it for others to see. I'm not entirely sure if the article is biased, but I am certain of it's essay-like writing. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.128.185 (talk) 06:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I believe I've addressed the neutrality problems. Re: "tiny", that word was apparently quoted from a source. I've formatted and ref'd it appropriately. Daß Wölf 11:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)