Wikipedia:Peer review/Tracy Thermal Generating Station/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Tracy Thermal Generating Station[edit]


* Further information

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe this article did a good run on DYK on January 25 and has a good GA potential. I also want to make sure I've met all the requirements before hitting the GAN list. Thank you in advance for your interest.

Thanks, Bouchecl (talk) 02:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Cryptic C62
  • "Hydro-Québec's property" What is Hydro-Quebec? Why are they relevant?
Fixed I think I fixed it by removing HQ from the sentence. Briefly introduced the company in the first paragraph of the History section.
  • "Construction of this oil-fired generating station" Avoid using "this" and other pronouns when it is not clear what they refer to. This is particularly important for opening sentences of paragraphs, and doubly so for opening sentences of sections.
Fixed two or three occurrences of this :)
  • "Construction of this oil-fired generating station was undertaken in the early 1960s by the Shawinigan Water & Power Company to meet increasing demand in its service area and to mitigate the lack of potential for the significant expansion of hydropower on the Saint-Maurice River." Too many details crammed into one sentence. This could easily be chopped into two sentences
Fixed. I wrote a new lead paragraph for the History section.
New problem: "Quebec utilities are faced with rapid demand growth" Why is this written in the present tense? Same here: "The company initiates an ambitious construction program". Present tense bad. Past tense good. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Fixed again. Thanks again for reviewing. I blame my oversight on stylistic differences between the French and English Wikis. Présent narratif is a convenience in French but an hindrance in English. Duly noted. Bouchecl (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Why isn't the first paragraph of History presented in chronological order? It starts with "the early 1960s", then goes back to "February 1959".
Fixed the chronological issue in the new paragraph.
  • Avoid short one- and two-sentence paragraphs, such as those throughout Technical overview and the beginning of Retirement and dismantlement.
Fixed the two paragraphs you mention.
  • "The plant ceased operations at the end of the 2010-2011 winter season to be mothballed." What does it mean to be mothballed? Also, perhaps related, why did the plant cease operations?
Fixed Explained the meaning of mothballing in industry parlance. Second question: "It was officially retired on March 1, 2011."
It is problematic that the explanation of mothball appears after several uses of the term in the article -- there's one in the lead and one in the Operation section. Ideally, the explanation should appear immediately before or after the very first usage. Alternatively, just rewrite those sentences to avoid using the term at all. The purpose of this article is not to familiarize the reader with "industry parlance." The purpose is to give information about Tracy Thermal Generating Station that anyone can understand. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Fixed once and for all. I eradicated the term mothball. :) Bouchecl (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The Generation statistics section is a pretty clear example of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I suggest either summarizing important figures in full sentences, or removing it altogether.
Fixed Section removed. Added cites to the table in 2 places.

I'll be watching this page, so if you would like clarification or more feedback, just drop a note here. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I'll go through each point on your list starting tomorrow. Bouchecl (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I've edited the article as per your suggestions. Bouchecl (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)