Jump to content

Talk:Solar Roadways

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 100.11.4.132 (talk) at 18:12, 17 March 2017 (→Concerns not addressed: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

News

Good find. If its true it should be there. Search shows no one else has used this as a reference before. Is it a reliable source? Why does Google News search don't show more coverage of this? It seems like major newspapers would report it. Dream Focus 04:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The site does not appear to me be a reliable source in general. And the article in question is a direct copy from the Daily Caller article discussed above. The prose is quite definitely purple. We need references for the facts, without the obviously-biased judgments. Jeh (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it's alt-right angst fueled by hydrocarbon money and PR. They are having a field day with this little mom and pop shop using 1980s technology and Home Depot kit. Meanwhile the real solar roadways built in France (and soon the US) are doing well. They have over 200 projects in development around the world. -- GreenC 22:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to remember that Wikipedia has inappropriate language guidelines? • Sbmeirow • Talk • 23:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stricken. Satisfied or would you prefer a complete censor? -- GreenC 23:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

criticism censoship

this morning I expanded the "criticism" section. I stated facts and put in references and links. This afternoon it was all gone. Only vanilla criticism remains. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cldig (talk • contribs) 13:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because the material you're trying to add is referenced only to YouTube videos that are self-published sources. Just as anybody can create a web page, anybody can make a YT video claiming anything they want to. I personally agree with both David Jones' and Phil Mason's criticisms, but I'm not what WP would consider a reliable source either. The remaining material is referenced to publications that are known to exercise knowledgeable editorial oversight over what they publish.
Note that not every YT video is considered a WP:SPS. If National Geographic or Scientific American had a YT channel (they may well have; I haven't checked) we would presume that its content was subject to the same oversight as the respective magazines.
This is not "censorship", this is WP enforcing its own editorial standards. Please see WP:SPS, WP:RS, and WP:V. Such material simply will not stand in this article (no matter how much you or I agree with it). Thank you for your understanding. Jeh (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
p.s.: Regarding "vanilla" criticism - both David Jones (eevblog) and Phil Mason (Thunderfoot) do have very distinctive styles. It's part of the reason they have so many more views and likes than, say, I would if I were presenting the same facts. But for something that is trying to be taken seriously - as an encyclopedia - their distinctive styles reduce their usefulness as sources, as it is difficult to separate the hyperbole and the theatrics from the facts. It isn't the place of an encyclopedia to be boisterous or entertaining - just reliable. Jeh (talk) 01:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Total disaster', March 9 17

Have people here seen this coverage? http://principia-scientific.org/americas-first-solar-roadway-total-disaster/ --Nigelj (talk) 06:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC) Nigelj (talk) 06:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here on the talk page, look up two sections. And then to the section before that. Jeh (talk) 07:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns not addressed

Could someone create a section that mentions other general COMMON SENSE concerns that have NOT been addressed by a source. For example, I do not believe the solar panel people demonstrated driving on the panels. Can someone point out this fact? I did see the parked backhoe, but not much else. It does not require an engineer to point out that many of the claims put forth by the panel company have not been proven. Where are the road cones and skidding cars? They did not even show how well you can see the LED lights during a sunny day. It seems that rain is posing a problem to these panels in 2017. They made MANY claims but do not show proof. Since there is no proof, then these claim should not be mentioned on WP. (If they are)

BUT, by default, solar roadways, as a CONCEPT, includes lane lines for the drivers and proper automobile handling on the surface, SO NOT MENTIONING their failure of proof, gives the reader an assumption that all is well. Right now, as per this article, solar roadways are almost ready for prime time, for, at the very minimum, the very basics had to have been worked out and passed testing because there is no mention of failure in these regards. As per this article, just a few more minor kinks to work out. So, when the concept of solar roadways is mentioned, BY DEFAULT, road surface and durability is included. Since this has not been proven by the company, this should be mentioned. As for electrical data, it seems like most of it is proposed, not actual field data. Since the concept of solar roadways includes inherent features, due to the fact that they are a roadway, and not just a solar panel, this concept needs to remain theoretical, and handled as such. All is not well in the solar roadway world, and it does not take an engineer to see the lack of real world testing. I want them to work as the next guy, but they are very far off it seems.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Solar_Roadways&oldid=770806262"