This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
He didn't write that, he "reached out to electrical engineer David Forbes". Who are they and why are they credible? Was this part of Gawker? Or just his personal blog, where he didn't know enough about it to write about, so he just picked some guy at random to talk about it? DreamFocus00:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it is RS, it is only RS for the notion there are "technical hurdles". The embedded essay provides no explanation how Forbes knows the various things he claims to know, like bolting details .... and is that in the version now in R&D or was that some idea from a few years ago? It's interesting, but since we don't really know what the guy analyzed (rumor or hands on prototype) we can't evaluate it properly. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jalopnik says Jalopnik is a weblog covering cars, car culture, and the automotive industry. Owned and operated by Gawker Media since 2004, Jalopnik emphasizes irreverent humour.[1][2] "Jalopnik" is a portmanteau of Jalopy and Beatnik.[3]. This is a humor site, not a serious tech site. DreamFocus00:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the site has editorial oversight, which it does, it can be both humorous and reliable. Check the front page. The articles are serious enough; they just throw in funny remarks here and there. I'd thought that if a RS got commentary from someone, that commentary would be considered vetted and reliable as well. —Torchiesttalkedits14:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
T&C at ExtremeTech appears to disclaim editorial control and no responsiblity for content.... so not RS.
SingularityHub appears to a blog with a single writer masquerading as a news site. Also not RS.
OBSERVATION - if there is such good stuff in these weak sources, why aren't we seeing the same thing reported in sources like Popular Mechanics or NYT's Technology News? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Singularity Hub is already being used as a source in this article. The source already in use is by a different author than the article I linked above. As for ExtremeTech, can you explain what you mean about disclaiming editorial control? The about page indicates they have an editor and a staff of writers. Sebastian Anthony was a senior editor at the site. It's a specialty site, backed by a large publisher, focusing on technology, which seems like an appropriate venue for this type of analysis. —Torchiesttalkedits15:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
e/c
(A) SINGULARITY HUB - your reply is non-responsive to the criticisms posed. You merely said we're already using it. So? Our articles have lots of citations to sources that were ill-considered. In this case, the sole existing cite to that source is for the generic statement about this company's concept. We could easily replace that with any number of unquestionable RSs. My criticisms of SingularityHub as RS remain unanswered.
(B) EXTREME TECH - The site doesn't even bother to have its own terms and conditions. Instead, the T&C is derived from the parent company. The entire thing reads as a giant disclaimer for anything, including content quality. Our own article about Extreme Tech calls it a "weblog", and its clear from our article that the source has been struggling to gain and maintain standing
(C) You did not reply to my observation that if there are real zingers known to the world, they should be easily sourced to recognized mainstream sources, but we're still fighting these great battles over sources I'm pretty sure most people have never heard of.
You may have missed my addition stating that Singularity Hub has multiple authors, and is not just a one-man blog. Your comment on ExtremeTech is still unclear. Where are these terms and conditions you're referring to? The site has an editorial and writing staff, and a major publisher. That qualifies as reliable. I've checked around Wikipedia, and it's been agreed upon as a reliable source in a number of other articles and discussions, so there's plenty of consensus supporting that view. Outside of that, this article from the Huffington Post cites both of those articles and mentions some of the same numbers. —Torchiesttalkedits16:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re singularity, # of eds really isn't the determining factor; the goalpost is and remains is that BLOG (yes). Re ExtremeTech, ummmmm uhhhhhh..... like most sites, the T&C would be the thing that says "Terms of Use" which on most news and blog sites is usually found under "About" or as in this case, at the bottom of the page in bold, where it says - naturally enough - "terms of use". As for the WP:VAGUEWAVE to mystery prior RS debates in unspecified locations... you didn't expect to convince me on that basis, did you? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the RS value is improving, but its still a WashPo blog, in which the main things I think you want to use appear to be imported from other blogs. But that's me guessing. How would you propose to improve the article based on the WashPo blog? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
edit conflict... I was trying to add that blogpost appears in three archived discussions (search archives for "forget roofs"). I probably commented in one or more of them previously... I did not review them to refresh my memory.I'll respond to what you simultaneously posted (below) later. Gotta run for awhileNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)nothing to respond to after all NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It says "Back in 2010, the company assumed that a 12′ by 12′ glass panel would cost around $10,000." That has nothing to do with current costs, which are unknown, and they said back then prices would go down when they went to mass production. So no reason to quote ridiculous guess numbers. And they are just quoting another blog, Vox, which discussions in the past agreed was not a reliable source. Their blog section doesn't have the editorial oversight as their main articles, that's why this was just posted as someone's personal blog, not an actual article, and it just quoted the first random numbers it found online. DreamFocus17:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The extremetech article referenced says "According to some maths done by Aaron Saenz, the total cost to redo America’s roadways with Solar Roadways would be $56 trillion". It links to Singuarity Hub as the source for that information. [1] So if you have a quote, then why not mention the original source, not a guy who did nothing but repeat it without checking any numbers on his own? And didn't we agree before Singularity Hub wasn't a reliable source? They currently are used as a reference for the first paragraph, which just repeats what the company officially said. A real news source could be found to reference that. DreamFocus19:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We didn't agree that Singularity Hub isn't a reliable source. They have an editorial staff as shown here. And Singularity University is an established group too. These sites are exactly the kind of technology experts who should be analyzing the available information. —Torchiesttalkedits06:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If that's true, and if they have something worth saying, then we should be seeing journalists reporting those experts' conclusions in undisputed RS sources. But that isn't happening yet, apparently. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've shown precisely that. To review:
Singularity Hub is reliable and did some analysis.
ExtremeTech is reliable and reported on SH, adding some of its own analysis. Here's the non-vaguewave info:
Huffington Post is reliable and reported on both of these sources.
Also, here's an article from Scientific American on the subject. Finally, it needs to be made clear that a site using the term blog doesn't always invalidate something as a source. If it's some tiny little site on wordpress, sure, but a blog can also be essentially the regular online column for a member of the writing staff for a site. That's the case with the Washington Post article and this one. Note the title of this blog is " Observations: Opinion, arguments & analyses from the editors of Scientific American". That means it goes through the usual editorial oversight and vetting process. And it links back to other articles on the site. It's analysis from a reliable secondary source independent of the subject, exactly what we need in the article. —Torchiesttalkedits17:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The transcript of the state of the union address should be on some government website to search through to see exactly what he said. DreamFocus11:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since the OP lacks a substantive explanation of how the OP thinks it would improve this article, I'm going to assume this thread was intended something else, and since TPG says these pages are for discussing article improvements, I'm not going to take time to answer. Oh wait. Damn. Too late. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the president really did mentioned it in his state of the union address, then that's import enough to be tossed into the article somewhere. DreamFocus11:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article would be improved because this is something quite notable, if it was actually true. I couldn't find anywhere mentioning that. I downloaded the 2015 transcript but don't see solar roadways mentioned once in it. DreamFocus17:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DreamFocus gets what I was getting at--if real, it's quite notable. I took it at face value. Of course it must be checked. If it's NOT real, that also is notable for a different reason. It reflects on the company which this wikipedia page is about. GangofOne (talk) 00:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is at commons.wikipedia.org From video of January 2015 State of the Union speech by President Obama, enhanced by the White House with commentary, about "Free and open internet" that allowed Indegogo (unnamed) to raise money for Solar Roadways . Take a look at http://www.solarroadways.com/images/news/Blue%20Room.jpg a visit to the White House GangofOne (talk) 01:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed since the president is speaking about the internet, not solar R&D for roads. Also opposed because a pic of the pres does not inform the reader about the article topic, as images are supposed to do. Also opposed to mentioning the prez statement even in text because we would be assuming the president is refering to this company. Granted this company is the only one possibility I know of, but I still have to apply my special knowledge of that fact to connect the ambiguous statement by the pres to the Solar Roadways company. That's unpermitted OR, no matter how solid I think the assumption may be. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it's used or not is not so important to me, but your reasoning puzzles me. If you listen to that section of the speech it's a list of various technological triumphs and optimistic forward-progress-marching-wonderfulness. The President didn't say the part about solar roadsways, but it's in HIS video, HE's the Chief, it won't be there if he didn't mean it. About the company referred to, it doesn't matter if Solar Roadways Inc is the company referred to building solar roadways, all that is necessary is that Solar Roadways Inc be in the set of companies that were crowdfunded over the internet by 48,000 people that build solar roadways. I think we agree Solar Roadways Inc is in that set. GangofOne (talk) 02:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I support inclusion, picture and all. The picture shows what we're talking about, no need writing out what was said, just show the image and mention where in the video it was at. DreamFocus02:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed 'cause Prez didn't say it in the first place Well duh. Transcript of prez' actual speech lacks the phrase "solar road" or "solar roadway". This image creates a false impression that the phrase "solar roadways" made it into the actual State of the Union speech, thus putting words into Obama's mouth that he did not utter in the speech. The file uploaded to wikipedia credits "some goverment lackey" with the phrase made possible a an online fundraising platform that raised $2.2 million....". "According to some government lackey, a free and open internet made possible...." <<<<< That's what this file actually supports, and I'm underwhelmed at the weight of some government lackey's opinion. Besides that, it still doesn't name THIS company as THE company, the topic was the internet not the company nor product, the picture does not show Solar Roadways (neither company nor product), and while its OK for the Whitehouse to engage in POV and propaganda, that's not what we do so to stick to our principles we'd have to substitute the president's head with the mug of some government lackey, because that's who said it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The text under the image could say, "while the president did not say these actual words himself, this did appear during his state of the union address". DreamFocus04:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are three issues.
(A) NONCOMPLIANCE/PROMOTION This use of the image would not comply with MOS:IMAGES which states that "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic." The image is "significantly and directly related" to our article net neutrality and it might be "significantly and directly related" to our article 2015 State of the Union Address, but that shouldn't be assumed without clearly explaining whether the ruffles from the WH website are a part of the SOTU address, or whether they are just flourishes and ruffles from one of the various outlets of coverage. But the image does not "significantly and directly relate" to the company in Idaho nor to their product, except to imply that someone at the Whitehouse is a fan. That borderline WP:PROMOTIONAL in my opinion.
(B) MISLEADING The image is misleading, because it is a strong-in-your-gut visual implication that Obama said these words yet our uploaded file's metadata credits them to "some government lackey". In good faith yet woeful inadequacy, DreamFocus has suggested a bit of lawyerly text to walk back the impact of the visual distortion. Most people don't care nearly as much about lawyer text as about imagery.... in fact, many just read the lead and look at the pictures! For the who do read the disclaimer, the damage will have already been done.
(C) ORIGINAL RESEARCH The government lackey's words describing what a free and open internet has done does not explicitly identify either this company or their approach. It's a reasonable guess that they meant THIS company, but that's still WP:OR using special knowledge that us editors have, specifically, we know that there aren't any other companies - we think - that meet that description.
(D) Hopefully I don't have to repeat my explanation of "what the issue is" a third time.
Whether included or not , I don't care. But, just for the record, the image is from the White House, it's their workproduct. It's not some other outlet. I think it is correct to attribute it to Obama; it's his home page. So, I have changed the words "government lackey" to "Barrack Obama" accordingly. GangofOne (talk) 08:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article is the perfect example of the type of article that shouldn't exist, seriously. No spec, no price, no availability, so delete this article until they can actually ship something instead of hot air and vaporware! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 06:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What you say is quite reasonable, but in this case there are special circumstances that make this a useful article. There may be helpful lessons for others seeking SBIR handouts, and since this was the biggest Indiegogo response of all time (that fact alone is notable) all the backers will want to be kept up to date here on all the progress that is being made. GangofOne (talk) 06:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they did announce just a few days ago that now that their Phase II prototype is finally done, they'll actually start installing public pilot projects around their hometown to test more stuff. They also got another grant from the FHWA for more tests.[1] So it's not like there's no progress. -- 2A02:810A:1140:878:0:0:0:3 (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Criticism
Considering how well known this is to be a scam by everyone with the slightest background in physics or electrical engineering, there should be atleast a small mention of this in the article. At the very least mentioning that it is physically impossible for it to ever be viable to put a solar panel flat on the floor rather than raised at angle.
82.42.233.172 (talk) 03:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
