Jump to content

Talk:Wind power/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Rcsprinter123 (talk · contribs) 20:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section analysis

[edit]

Lead

[edit]

History

[edit]
  • There's nothing sourcing the last part of the 3rd paragraph about multibladed turbines in America, a timescale for that would also be useful - how long is "many years"?Green tickY
  • There is a red link to Johannes Juul, can this either be delinked or created because it reflects negatively on the article.

Wind energy

[edit]
  • Map on the left is too small to read, maybe enlarge it some and include a note in the caption explaining it can be seen larger with a click.Green tickY
  • Distribution of windspeed and high altitude winds sections are unreferenced.Green tickY

Wind farms

[edit]
  • The first part until Feeding into grid is unreferenced. Green tickY
  • It keeps going on about MW in that first section - it needs an initial explanation that megawatts are used, not everybody will automatically know that. Green tickY done Richerman (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wind power capacity and production

[edit]
  • In the tables just above Growth trends, there is no indication of what the hell TWh is, and MW again. I had to Google it myself to find out. Say something about terawatt hours. This is only done once in the whole article in the fifth paragraph in Small scale wind-power.Green tickY
  • Graphs in Growth trends need enlarging slightly, but are visible at current.
  • More wikilinks throughout the section would be nice, as it uses a lot of technical language, especially in Capacity factor and Penetration.Green tickY
  • There is an irrelevant image in Capacity factor of a wind turbine under construction. This would be better elsewhere. Green tickY done - I've removed the image as it isn't really relevant to any section. Richerman (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Economics

[edit]
  • The second section of Incentives and community benefits is unreferenced.Green tickY
  • It doesn't represent a very worldwide view in Cost trends. It concentrates mainly on the United States, with mentions of Britain, Spain and Germany but nothing from Africa or Asia. Wouldn't one expect some wind farms in Australia with those ideal flat landscapes? Mention those. Green tickY

  • No issues with Environmental effects.

Politics

[edit]
  • Only one image and that's in the third subsection. Consider adding some representing public opinion. Green tickY
  • The Public opinion section content itself is good displaying statistics but more wikilinks wanted again. Green tickY
  • Sixth paragraph of Community is unreferenced. Green tickY
  • Worldwide view wanted again in Community, just the West spoken about, mainly UK.

  • No issues with Small scale wind power, apart from perhaps the images could be underneath each other instead of the ugly side-by-side which squeezes the text in the middle? Green tickY done - I've removed one image as there wasn't really room for both Richerman (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll analyse more soon. Rcsprinter (talkin' to me?) @ 20:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
The number of each ref I give is correct as of revision 531794627, if any have been added since they will have moved around.
  • Ref 3 is dead Green tickY
  • Ref 5 doesn't let you on without server permission Green tickY
  • Refs 6, 21, 22 & 23 are dead Green tickY
  • Ref 26 does not back up the statement Green tickY
  • Ref 40 is dead Green tickY
  • Ref 41 is not a direct citation Green tickY
  • Ref 47 needs updating to its new location here Green tickY
  • Ref 50 needs a {{da icon}} because it's in Danish. This also means I can't read it but it's just a table of numbers. Green tickY
  • Likewise with ref 54 but {{de icon}} Green tickY

Checking more references tomorrow. Rcsprinter (constabulary) @ 20:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget these are from the revision I linked to above.

  • Refs 56, 69, 70, 71, 72, 78, 80, and 81 are dead. Green tickY
  • Refs 57, 59, 60, 118 and 58 redirect to the site's main page Green tickY
  • Refs 66, 120, 142 and 110 needs login information to view Green tickY
  • Refs 82, 85, 96, 102, 115, 116, 127, 136, 140, and 144 are dead. Green tickY
  • Ref 84 is a blog and not reliable
  • Ref 86 should be a note; it is not a citation Green tickY
  • Ref 90 does not link to anything specific Green tickY
  • Ref 139 needs formatting properly and the link tagging Spanish ({{es icon}}) Green tickY
  • Refs 150, 156, 164, 168 are dead Green tickY
  • Ref 165 is generic, as is 169 Green tickY
  • I can't check the book references but I will assume good faith and hope they all exist and provide the right info

When these are all fixed we'll look at the criteria. Rcsprinter (tell me stuff) @ 20:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

[edit]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    I haven't checked the rationales and things, but I'm trusting they're all fine, as most of the images are from Commons.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail: