User talk:Angelina1209/sandbox

- I am curious to know a bit more about allotted energy quotas and overconsumption. Zachglee (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- This criticism may not be accurate, but I feel like there are couple times when you use words like 'countless' and 'enormous' and I am not totally convinced from the rest of the article that those are the best words to describe what they are being used to describe. For example, while the article convinces me that mini-grids have the potential to do a lot of good in the right communities, it is not obvious to me that 'mini grids provide countless opportunities for the local economy to grow and improve'. This statement may be totally true, but as a reader I think it feels a little like biased exaggeration since the article doesn't spend a ton of time talking about those countless opportunities. Zachglee (talk) 16:15, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the organization overall is good, I like that there are clearly laid out benefits and risks sections Zachglee (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you could use a couple more sources Zachglee (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- In general I think some of the smaller subsections could be elaborated on -- in many of them I was genuinely curious to know a bit more detail about those challenges/benefits and how they come about. (Some of this may be remedied by the prior section of the article, which would give me more background) Zachglee (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Could be cool to have a section on existing successful and unsucessful minigrids, so we get the chance to look at some concrete examples of how these are implemented in the real world. Zachglee (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really like how your article is organized, it's very easy to navigate. I think the section headings are well chosen and cover the most important benefits and risks. Kellyg320 (talk) 16:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The tone of some of your writing can come off as biased. It's difficult to discuss the benefits of mini-grids without seeming like you're arguing in favor of mini-grids. Maybe this could be helped by citing specific statistics from areas that rely on mini-grids to back up your claims? The Leh District case study you mention in the Economics sections is a really strong and specific example. I'm not sure if many case studies on mini-grids exist, but more sources would add weight to your claims. Perhaps include a section on existing or successful mini-grids? Overall, more specific examples and a more neutral tone would definitely improve the article. Kellyg320 (talk) 16:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what pictures would be most relevant to the article, but some variety of pictures, graphs, flow charts would break up the text and help the reader visualize. A "see also" or "related articles" section could be useful, especially to link some of the other technologies that you mentioned in the technical benefits section. Kellyg320 (talk) 16:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the risk-benefit setup is really impactful and I would like to try incorporating that setup into my own article.Kellyg320 (talk) 16:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- If there's info on it, could also be cool to have a section on what the current innovations in mini-grid technology are, or what are the newest ideas for how to improve and implement mini-grids. Zachglee (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]