User talk:Aknordstrom
Your article has been moved to AfC space
[edit]Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Aknordstrom/Intelligent Energy Storage has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Intelligent Energy Storage, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article. Your draft is waiting for a review by an experienced editor, if you have any questions please ask on our Help Desk! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hello! Aknordstrom,
you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us!
|
I, and the rest of the hosts, would be more than happy to answer any questions you have! SarahStierch (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation
[edit]
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Intelligent Energy Storage.
- To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the
- Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! DGG ( talk ) 20:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- You had some questions. Let me explain further. I interpreted the article as advocacy for the technique. Promotionalism refers just as much to such things as to advertisements for a particular company. There is obviously some considerable overlap between explaining something, and advocating it, and a good deal can depend on tone and presentation. I have been working with this sort of commercial and technical material for several years in Wikipedia, and understand the problems. I also understand the ways of coping with them within our standards--and, I need to say, the ways used to evade them. But when it is done right, I think I have the reputation here as one of the most open-minded of Wikipedia administrators in dealing with articles on commercial subjects.
- There were some things I picked up as specific signals:
- About half the article was written in bullet point outline. This is a typical promotional technique. Encyclopedias are written in prose, using lists only for some specific purposes that need lists for clarity of expression. The "Commercial applications section was one such (tho it has some other problems--see below) but the other sections would have been clearer as paragraphs. I know there are large parts of Wikipedia written inappropriately in list format; there's a good deal of Wikipedia that by current standards is overly promotional. We're trying to deal with this, but there are probably over a hundred thousand such articles that need to be removed or rewritten. For the moment, were at least trying not to add to them.
- The content of the commercial lists section is what we call a laundry list--everything possible lumped together. It basically says it is already feasible of large scale commercial or organizational energy consumers of all types, and might be suitable for residential use later on.
- Some of the content is written in sentence fragments, or sequences of buzzwords -- other common promotional techniques.
- Three examples were listed; two are owned by the same company,using equipment from the same provider. This raises the question of whether the article might be perhaps intended to promote that company. I have read the three sources used for this. I regard them as PR based. All that they really claim is that the buildings are the first two such buildings using storage equipment built by one particular company, and the first such buildings in Manhattan. Whether they are the first buildings world-wide may be very much another matter. Frankly, this claim is advertising.
- There is one external link, to the web site for that particular provider.
- The article is repetitive, saying most of the points several times over. The utility benefits and commercial benefits sections say essentially the same thing, and what they mean is that greater reliability, etc, is better for producers and consumers alike. This sort of repetition is sometimes just unskilled amateur writing, but it is also a deliberate PR technique.
A:s a general problem, based on the way the article presents it, this is not really an altogether new technology, but rather a more intensive use of what is already known by other names. It is not the least clear to me in what way it is an intensification, except by the claimed use of a digital interface, and an emphasis on storage. This raises the question of how significant it is, as compared to the use of the components. It also raises the question of whether this is entirely new. Certainly the components of such systems have been controlled electronically for many years, and the interconnecting of them is nothing new. The particular sophistication of the current systems may be new--I woukd expect this would be the case indefinitely for whatever system is state of the art. But electronic control systems for power generation at a utility scale are as old as digital computers (actually, even older, with analogue computers). Electronic systems to control battery charging are rather old also. There is no one sudden particular technological change in computers that has led to a major change in technical or economic feasibility-- or at least none is shown in the article. The relevant changes making this more prominent are the increasing economic costs of renewable fuels in general, and increasing political expectations for conservation. That's what motivates the technology. In your lede section "Today there are a number of companies developing and testing battery systems for energy storage. Other companies are developing and marketing software systems to interface storage with energy grids. In this emerging marketplace, there are a few companies developing energy storage systems driven by a digital interface to store electricity." The existence of a company integrating both products is predictable, as it is only common sense that both systems are required and must be integrated. It is not particularly significant--unless one is representing a company making such a product.
- I then wonder about the relation to other existing articles, in particular Distributed generation and the more specific articles in the see also section to that general article. What might make sense is to say that the storage of energy generated at different costs and at different times is a complement to distributed generation by different technologies. This is a rather obvious concept, and is about as old as the commercial generation of electricity-- such storage being intrinsically one of the key advantages of hydroelectric power, and its complementarity with fuel-based generation quite straightforward. Similarity , the mismatch between the time wind-generated power is produced, and the need for power has been one of the problems with such power since the beginning--and the use of storage batteries to compensate for it present from the beginning also. I read and appreciated the Sandia report, which goes in great detail about the economics of the various technologies. I note also that this report considers many other techniques than storage batteries, while the article is focused on them. I conclude, therefore, that the article is promotional of storage battery systems in general, and of one company's product in particular.
- The first step is to eliminate the references to that firm. The second is to get some academic references that can not be looked at as possibly contaminated by PR. (The Sandia article is good, and I'd add [1]--not just the summary of it you listed.). The third is to better explain the complementarity--and the integration--write the article on that basis. The advantages of such systems are the same as the concept of integrated or smart power systems in general, and I do not think it relevant content. Whether there is an article at all, remains to be seen. If you think you've gotten somewhere, let me know on my talk p. and I'll take a look. I need to tell you, though, that the applicable standard for approving it is whether it has some degree of a reasonable chance--whether it will actually stay in WP is up to the community. I will give you advice about what I see as the chances based on my experience here, but the actual results are unpredictable. My purpose is to get good articles for technical subjects. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
(I seem to have written a good deal more than I intended. Feel free to use anything I've said here in your article if it helps, ) DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation
[edit]- If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Intelligent Energy Storage.
- To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the
- Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Kilopi (talk) 00:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation
[edit]- If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Intelligent Energy Storage.
- To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the
- Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Cheers! Stella BATPHONEGROOVES 23:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Intelligent Energy Storage, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 14:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of User:Aknordstrom/Demand Energy Networks
[edit]
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on User:Aknordstrom/Demand Energy Networks, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Legacypac (talk) 05:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)