Talk:The Ocean Cleanup/Archive 2
| This is an archive of past discussions about The Ocean Cleanup. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
- Cost per kg
- I just looked at their 2022 annual report and it indicates they removed 923,000kg for a total expenditure of about €9M. That's VERY a different cost than is indicated in the article. Is it not acceptable to use their audited annual report as a source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:3B3:A600:D0CD:8C0A:CF9D:ACC0 (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Proposed content updates
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
Hello,
In line with the paid contribution disclosure requirements, I am proposing the following substantial updates to improve sourcing consistency, structure, and neutrality across the article.
Where appropriate, I have removed or adjusted content that relied primarily on primary sources, simplified overly detailed passages, and aligned wording more closely with independent secondary coverage.
For convenience, a consolidated draft reflecting all proposed changes is available here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Toometa/The_Ocean_Cleanup
This is only intended to provide a global overview; each proposed modification is detailed below.
Extended content | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Proposed update #1Location: History section – opening sentence
Rationale Minor copy-edit to improve clarity and concision, without changing the underlying information or sourcing. Proposed update #2Location: History section – end of the opening paragraph
Rationale Removes a non-informative sentence that merely notes the absence of a detail in the source, without contributing meaningful content. Proposed update #3Location: History section – 2014-2017: Initial prototype subsection - at the end of the first paragraph Proposed addition:
Proposed update #4Location: History section – 2014-2017: Initial prototype subsection - last paragraph
Rationale Reformatting for clarity and summary style, replacing an unnecessary bullet list with equivalent prose. Source note The existing source supporting the first clause is retained. Of the remaining sources, the Science reference is not necessary and has been removed. The three other sources are consolidated at the end of the paragraph. Proposed update #5Location: History section – System 001 subsection Removal of the opening paragraph beginning with “Tests in 2018 led to sea anchors…”. Rationale The statements in this paragraph are either not clearly supported by the cited sources or rely primarily on a primary source, namely a video produced by the organization itself (World Maritime News). Proposed update #6Location: History section – System 001 subsection
Rationale The nickname and pop culture reference are non-essential details and are not required in a summary-style history section. Source note The CNN source is removed as it is no longer necessary, and the remaining source is moved to the end of the sentence. Proposed update #7Location: History section – System 001 subsection Add the following citation: <ref>{{Cite news |last=Simon |first=Matt |title=Ocean Cleanup's Plastic Catcher Is Busted. So What Now? |url=https://www.wired.com/story/ocean-cleanups-plastic-catcher/ |access-date=2025-12-10 |work=Wired |language=en-US |issn=1059-1028}}</ref> at the end of the sentence:
Proposed update #8Location: History section – System 001 subsection
Rationale The supplier detail is non-essential and removed for summary-style consistency. Proposed update #9Location: History section Move the “System 002 and 03” subsection above the “Interceptors 001–010” subsection. Proposed update #10Location: History section - “System 002 and 03 subsection” - first sentence
Rationale The nickname and pop culture reference are non-essential details and are not required in a summary-style history section. Proposed update #11Location: History section - System 002 and 03 subsection - first paragraph, last sentence
Rationale This change clarifies the timeline and removes unnecessary repetition, while fully preserving the information as supported by the source. Proposed update #12Location: History section - System 002 and 03 subsection - first paragraph
Rationale The rewording aligns the statement more closely with the scope and level of detail supported by the available source (Wired). Proposed update #13Location: History section - System 002 and 03 subsection Removal of the paragraph beginning with “System 03 has about 5× the capacity of System 002…”, as it is supported solely by a primary source. Proposed update #14Location: History section - Interceptors 001-010 subsection Change the subsection title from “Interceptors 001–010” to “Interceptors”, as the individual numbering (including up to 010) is not supported by specific secondary references. Proposed update #15Location: History section - Interceptors subsection - first paragraph
Rationale The revised wording better reflects the level of detail and phrasing supported by the cited source, while improving clarity and maintaining an appropriate summary style. Source note The DesignBoom source is sufficient to support the information contained in both sentences. The Maritime Executive source can be removed as it is not adequately aligned with the statements. Proposed update #16Location: History section - Interceptors subsection - second paragraph
Rationale The removed sentences are either not clearly supported by the cited sources or rely on a broken link and what appears to be a primary source (a press release). Source note Retain only the EcoWatch source for the remaining paragraph, as it is sufficient to support the content. Proposed update #17Location: History section - Interceptors subsection - third paragraph
Rationale The existing wording is not supported by the cited source and relies on a primary source. The revised version reflects what is explicitly supported by independent sources and removes unsupported claims. Source note Remove the current source and add the following two at the end of the paragraph: <ref>{{Cite web |last=Jacques |first=Justin |date=2023-07-05 |title=‘Interceptor’ Keeps More Than 75 Tons of Debris Out of Pacific Ocean |url=https://stormwater.wef.org/2023/07/interceptor-keeps-more-than-75-tons-of-debris-out-of-pacific-ocean/ |access-date=2026-02-11 |website=Stormwater Report |language=en-US}}</ref> <ref>{{Cite web |last=Alford |first=Joseph |title=Home |url=https://ballonainterceptor.lacounty.gov/ |access-date=2026-02-11 |website=Ballona Creek Interceptor |language=en-US}}</ref> Proposed update #18Location: History section - Interceptors subsection - last paragraph
Rationale The removed material is not supported by the cited source and relies on a primary source (The Ocean Cleanup’s website). Unfortunately, the remaining content in this paragraph also appears to rely primarily on primary sources. I leave it to the reviewer’s discretion whether the entire paragraph should be removed on sourcing grounds. Proposed update #19Location: History section - at the end Proposed addition Addition of a new subsection titled “30 Cities Program”, with the following content:
Proposed update #20Location: Research section Complete removal of the subsection “Scientific findings.” Rationale The subsection relies almost entirely on primary scientific publications and summarizes their findings directly, without substantial independent secondary coverage discussing these results. Moreover, the content largely concerns broader environmental science topics rather than encyclopedic information about the organization itself. Proposed update #21Location: Research section Removal of the subsection heading “Oceanic expeditions,” which is no longer necessary if Proposed update #20 is accepted, and modification of the first paragraph as follows:
Rationale The removed sentence relied on a primary source and contained promotional language. The revised wording aligns more closely with the available independent source and avoids unsupported claims. Source note Retain only the SFGate source at the end of the paragraph. Proposed update #22Location: Funding section - second paragraph
Rationale Minor wording adjustment for clarity and tense consistency, without altering the meaning or adding new information. Proposed update #23Location: Funding section - fourth paragraph
Rationale Editorial adjustment for readability; no substantive change. Proposed update #24Location: Funding section - sixth paragraph
Rationale The current paragraph relies entirely on a primary source and includes claims that are not clearly supported by that source. The proposed revision replaces the paragraph with wording based strictly on an independent secondary source (Newsweek), aligning the content with what is explicitly reported there and removing unsupported detail. Source note Replace the current primary source with the following secondary source: <ref>{{Cite news |last=Falkenberg-Hull |first=Eileen |date=2025-04-15 |title=Cleaner Water: Kia and The Ocean Cleanup Partner to Green the Planet |url=https://www.newsweek.com/2025/05/02/cleaner-water-kia-ocean-cleanup-partner-green-planet-2056497.html |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250426113426/https://www.newsweek.com/2025/05/02/cleaner-water-kia-ocean-cleanup-partner-green-planet-2056497.html |archive-date=2025-04-26 |access-date=2026-01-16 |work=Newsweek |language=en}}</ref> Proposed update #25Location: Funding section - at the end Proposed addition Proposed update #26Location: Efficacy issues and possible negative impacts section - at the end of the second paragraph Proposed addition
Source note Use the following source to support the addition: <ref>{{Cite journal |last=Egger |first=Matthias |last2=Booth |first2=Andy M. |last3=Bosker |first3=Thijs |last4=Everaert |first4=Gert |last5=Garrard |first5=Samantha L. |last6=Havas |first6=Vilma |last7=Huntley |first7=Helga S. |last8=Koelmans |first8=Albert A. |last9=Kvale |first9=Karin |last10=Lebreton |first10=Laurent |last11=Niemann |first11=Helge |last12=Pang |first12=Qiaotong |last13=Proietti |first13=Maira |last14=Puskic |first14=Peter |last15=Richon |first15=Camille |date=2025-05-27 |title=Evaluating the environmental impact of cleaning the North Pacific Garbage Patch |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-00619-w |journal=Scientific Reports |volume=15 |issue=1 |pages=16736 |doi=10.1038/s41598-025-00619-w |issn=2045-2322 |language=en }}</ref> Rationale The proposed addition aims to provide contextual balance within the paragraph. It is acknowledged that the cited source is a primary source (a scientific study authored by members of the organization). However, the preceding sentence in the paragraph also relies on a primary scientific study that has not been discussed in independent secondary coverage. For reasons of consistency in sourcing standards, if the present addition is deemed inappropriate due to its reliance on a primary source, it may also be appropriate to reassess the preceding statement on similar grounds. I leave this to the reviewer’s discretion. Proposed update #27Location: History section Replace with a more recent freely licensed image available on Wikimedia Commons: commons:File:Boyan_Slat.jpg Proposed update #28Location: Lead section
Rationale The current lead is overly detailed, includes claims not clearly reflected in the body of the article, and departs from standard lead structure. The revised version condenses the content, removes promotional or predictive elements, and aligns strictly with material that is covered and sourced in the body of the article, in order to ensure compliance with summary style and neutrality. |
---
Thank you very much for your time and consideration. I remain fully open to discussion and adjustments based on community feedback. Best, Toometa (talk) 07:55, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Proposed content updates (reformatted request)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
Reposting and reformatting the edit request originally submitted on 13 February 2026, following the clarification provided by Spintendo regarding reference formatting and presentation.
Extended content | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Proposed update #1Location: History section – opening sentence
Rationale Minor copy-edit to improve clarity and concision, without changing the underlying information or sourcing. Proposed update #2Location: History section – end of the opening paragraph
Rationale Removes a non-informative sentence that merely notes the absence of a detail in the source, without contributing meaningful content. Proposed update #3Location: History section – 2014-2017: Initial prototype subsection - at the end of the first paragraph Proposed addition:
Using as the reference:
Proposed update #4Location: History section – 2014-2017: Initial prototype subsection - last paragraph
Rationale Reformatting for clarity and summary style, replacing an unnecessary bullet list with equivalent prose. Source note The existing source already used in the article supporting the first clause is retained. No new references are being added in this request. Of the remaining existing sources, the Science reference is not necessary and has been removed. The three other existing sources are consolidated at the end of the paragraph. Proposed update #5Location: History section – System 001 subsection Removal of the opening paragraph beginning with “Tests in 2018 led to sea anchors…”. Rationale The statements in this paragraph are either not clearly supported by the cited sources or rely primarily on a primary source, namely a video produced by the organization itself (World Maritime News). Proposed update #6Location: History section – System 001 subsection
Rationale The nickname and pop culture reference are non-essential details and are not required in a summary-style history section. Source note The existing CNN source currently used in the article is removed as it is no longer necessary. No new references are being added in this request, and the remaining existing source is moved to the end of the sentence. Proposed update #7Location: History section – System 001 subsection Add the following citation: Simon, Matt. "Ocean Cleanup's Plastic Catcher Is Busted. So What Now?". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 2025-12-10. at the end of the sentence:
Proposed update #8Location: History section – System 001 subsection
Rationale The supplier detail is non-essential and removed for summary-style consistency. Proposed update #9Location: History section Move the “System 002 and 03” subsection above the “Interceptors 001–010” subsection. Proposed update #10Location: History section - “System 002 and 03 subsection” - first sentence
Rationale The nickname and pop culture reference are non-essential details and are not required in a summary-style history section. Proposed update #11Location: History section - System 002 and 03 subsection - first paragraph, last sentence
Rationale This change clarifies the timeline and removes unnecessary repetition, while fully preserving the information as supported by the source. Proposed update #12Location: History section - System 002 and 03 subsection - first paragraph
Rationale The rewording aligns the statement more closely with the scope and level of detail supported by the available source (Wired). Proposed update #13Location: History section - System 002 and 03 subsection Removal of the paragraph beginning with “System 03 has about 5× the capacity of System 002…”, as it is supported solely by a primary source. Proposed update #14Location: History section - Interceptors 001-010 subsection Change the subsection title from “Interceptors 001–010” to “Interceptors”, as the individual numbering (including up to 010) is not supported by specific secondary references. Proposed update #15Location: History section - Interceptors subsection - first paragraph
Rationale The revised wording better reflects the level of detail and phrasing supported by the cited source, while improving clarity and maintaining an appropriate summary style. Source note The source currently used in the article from DesignBoom is sufficient to support the information contained in both sentences. No new references are being added in this request. The currently used Maritime Executive source can be removed as it is not adequately aligned with the statements. Proposed update #16Location: History section - Interceptors subsection - second paragraph
Rationale The removed sentences are either not clearly supported by the cited sources or rely on a broken link and what appears to be a primary source (a press release). Source note Retain only the EcoWatch source already present in the article for the remaining paragraph, as it is sufficient to support the content. No new references are being added in this request. Proposed update #17Location: History section - Interceptors subsection - third paragraph
Rationale The existing wording is not supported by the cited source and relies on a primary source. The revised version reflects what is explicitly supported by independent sources and removes unsupported claims. Source note Remove the current source and add the following two at the end of the paragraph: Jacques, Justin (2023-07-05). "'Interceptor' Keeps More Than 75 Tons of Debris Out of Pacific Ocean". Stormwater Report. Retrieved 2026-02-11. Alford, Joseph. "Home". Ballona Creek Interceptor. Retrieved 2026-02-11. Proposed update #18Location: History section - Interceptors subsection - last paragraph
Rationale The removed material is not supported by the cited source and relies on a primary source (The Ocean Cleanup’s website). Unfortunately, the remaining content in this paragraph also appears to rely primarily on primary sources. I leave it to the reviewer’s discretion whether the entire paragraph should be removed on sourcing grounds. Proposed update #19Location: History section - at the end Proposed addition Addition of a new subsection titled “30 Cities Program”, with the following content:
[1] Williment, Chloe (2025-09-01). "How The Ocean Cleanup is Removing Plastic Waste in 30 Cities". sustainabilitymag.com. Retrieved 2025-12-10. [2] "Celebrating Boyan Slat, The Ocean Cleanup, and the organization's 30 Cities Program". www.sail-world.com. Retrieved 2025-12-10. Proposed update #20Location: Research section Complete removal of the subsection “Scientific findings.” Rationale The subsection relies almost entirely on primary scientific publications and summarizes their findings directly, without substantial independent secondary coverage discussing these results. Moreover, the content largely concerns broader environmental science topics rather than encyclopedic information about the organization itself. Proposed update #21Location: Research section Removal of the subsection heading “Oceanic expeditions,” which is no longer necessary if Proposed update #20 is accepted, and modification of the first paragraph as follows:
Rationale The removed sentence relied on a primary source and contained promotional language. The revised wording aligns more closely with the available independent source and avoids unsupported claims. Source note Retain only the SFGate source already present in the article at the end of the paragraph, as no new references are being added in this request. Proposed update #22Location: Funding section - second paragraph
Rationale Minor wording adjustment for clarity and tense consistency, without altering the meaning or adding new information. Proposed update #23Location: Funding section - fourth paragraph
Rationale Editorial adjustment for readability; no substantive change. Proposed update #24Location: Funding section - sixth paragraph
Rationale The current paragraph relies entirely on a primary source and includes claims that are not clearly supported by that source. The proposed revision replaces the paragraph with wording based strictly on an independent secondary source (Newsweek), aligning the content with what is explicitly reported there and removing unsupported detail. Source note Replace the current primary source with the following secondary source: Falkenberg-Hull, Eileen (2025-04-15). "Cleaner Water: Kia and The Ocean Cleanup Partner to Green the Planet". Newsweek. Archived from the original on 2025-04-26. Retrieved 2026-01-16. Proposed update #25Location: Funding section - at the end Proposed addition
Beaumont-Thomas, Ben (2024-06-17). "Coldplay: vinyl copies of new album Moon Music will be made from old plastic bottles". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2025-12-10. Proposed update #26Location: Efficacy issues and possible negative impacts section - at the end of the second paragraph Proposed addition Source note Use the following source to support the addition: Egger, Matthias; Booth, Andy M.; Bosker, Thijs; Everaert, Gert; Garrard, Samantha L.; Havas, Vilma; Huntley, Helga S.; Koelmans, Albert A.; Kvale, Karin; Lebreton, Laurent; Niemann, Helge; Pang, Qiaotong; Proietti, Maira; Puskic, Peter; Richon, Camille (2025-05-27). "Evaluating the environmental impact of cleaning the North Pacific Garbage Patch". Scientific Reports. 15 (1): 16736. doi:10.1038/s41598-025-00619-w. ISSN 2045-2322. Rationale The proposed addition aims to provide contextual balance within the paragraph. It is acknowledged that the cited source is a primary source (a scientific study authored by members of the organization). However, the preceding sentence in the paragraph also relies on a primary scientific study that has not been discussed in independent secondary coverage. For reasons of consistency in sourcing standards, if the present addition is deemed inappropriate due to its reliance on a primary source, it may also be appropriate to reassess the preceding statement on similar grounds. I leave this to the reviewer’s discretion. Proposed update #27Location: History section Replace with a more recent freely licensed image available on Wikimedia Commons: commons:File:Boyan_Slat.jpg Proposed update #28Location: Lead section Rationale The current lead is overly detailed, includes claims not clearly reflected in the body of the article, and departs from standard lead structure. The revised version condenses the content, removes promotional or predictive elements, and aligns strictly with material that is covered and sourced in the body of the article, in order to ensure compliance with summary style and neutrality. --- |
Thank you for your time and consideration! Toometa (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
References
- ↑ Summers, Hannah (2018-09-08). "Scientists get ready to begin Great Pacific Garbage Patch cleanup". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2025-12-10.
- 1 2 3 4 Williment, Chloe (2025-09-01). "How The Ocean Cleanup is Removing Plastic Waste in 30 Cities". sustainabilitymag.com. Retrieved 2025-12-10.
- 1 2 3 "Celebrating Boyan Slat, The Ocean Cleanup, and the organization's 30 Cities Program". www.sail-world.com. Retrieved 2025-12-10.
- ↑ Beaumont-Thomas, Ben (2024-06-17). "Coldplay: vinyl copies of new album Moon Music will be made from old plastic bottles". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2025-12-10.
