I think you guys have done a good job of taking the original article and making it more comprehensive and organized. Here are some ideas on how you can improve it further:

• Begin implementing footnotes rather than just leaving all of the references at the bottom of the article. The earlier you start this process, the easier it will be, as it can be very tedious to apply footnotes to a large article.
• Consider adding a section titled Implementation, as it is not yet clear from the article how this incentive system is actually implemented.
• Check the tone of the writing. Watch out for unencyclopedic phrases such as "a huge waste of money" or the use of "we".

Leave a note here or on my talk page if you have questions or want more feedback. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey so I noticed that you put a notice on our page which states that we do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. It's quite difficult to find any substantial evidence that a negawatt market is being considered in other countries, due to the fact that the term may not even have international recognition. Any suggestions as to how we can improve our article to make it more internationally based? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mulforel (talk • contribs) 20:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]