Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of wind farm projects in Romania/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 01:50, 24 August 2009 [1].

List of wind farm projects in Romania[edit]

Nominator(s): Mario1987 13:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured list because i think it is featurable material Mario1987 13:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be pedantic, but by "projects" do you mean wind farms that are, well, "projected", that is to say ones that are under construction or are planned, or is this intended to include all wind farms in Romania. Whatever the definition it needs to be spelled out in the article. Boissière (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By project I mean under construction or planned wind farms. Mario1987 20:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Image needs alternative text per WP:ALT. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

done Mario1987 19:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't add alternative text, which is different from a image caption. Alternative text describes the image without naming the elements of it. See Wikipedia:Alternative text for images#Examples for what I mean. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is that better? Mario1987 09:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but no. This is what we need: [[File:Tihutawind.jpg|thumb|right|250 px|alt=Describe the image here|The [[Tihuţa Pass]] at an altitude of {{convert|1200|m|ft|abb=yes}}]] Dabomb87 (talk) 13:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I put it like you said ^ but it doesn't change anything. It's exactly the same. Mario1987 16:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I get it now. Mario1987 16:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the total rows don't sort correctly. Besides that, I don't understand why these rows are unnecessary.—Chris! ct 02:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  1. I don't see why you didn't include already installed Wind farms. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because there aren't any wind farms only scattered wind turbines. Mario1987 17:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • 76 Mega Watts of Wind Turbines? And from "In 2009, Romania will add 1,200 MW " I understand that some of these should already be finished.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes only wind turbines and all are espected to be completed by December 2009. Mario1987 09:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Could u change the title to List of wind farms in Romania? or Wind power in Romania?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because these are all projects. Mario1987 17:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Being Projects the list would be very unstable because each month new farms are created and become actual farms and not projects anymore.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes but I'm willing to modify the list each time something new appears. Mario1987 09:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Could u add information about the dates of proposed completion of these wind farms ?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because many of these farms don't have a projected completion date only estimates. Mario1987 17:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • My main problem is that till the end of this year 1,200 MW of Wind Energy will be added to Romania. Which of these farms will manufacture this energy and would they be removed from this list because they aren't projects anymore?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • What do you suggest? Should I keep the completed wind farms in the table and mark them as complete? Mario1987 09:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • I don't like the article's beginning. "As of 2008" makes it sound like the article is out of date.
    • What should i replace it with? Mario1987 09:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "Local authorities" a company?
    • But if the investing body is the local or county council what should i put there? Mario1987 09:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are you using US$ as primary units? This is about Romanian wind farms.
  • You link some companies but not others.
    • Some of the companies have an Wiki article and are linked and others don't. Should i link all of them or none? Mario1987 09:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the table, instead of putting "MW" after each number, you might make the header "Capacity (MW)" and remove "MW" from the individual values.
  • Why is there an empty row in the table?
  • I suggest that you make the totals a separate table. Otherwise, when you sort the table, they get jumbled up with the rest of the rows.
  • Put em dashes in the blank cells. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good with regard to link status and citation formatting. I do not know Romanian and therefore could not evaluate the sources for reliability. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note A native speaker has assured me that the sources are OK WRT reliability. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now:

  1. The authors seem not to understand the difference between watts and watt-hours. The phrase and a power-generating capacity of 23 terawatts is quite meaningless.
  2. The second stage will be operational by 2010 and produce 252.5 MW. The second stage will never produce 252.5 MW, because it is just the installed capacity. By the same reason I do not like the following phrases: producing 2.5 MW each, one that will produce 700 MW, one that will produce 400 MW, that will have a combined power output of 600 MW, producing a nominal output of 700 MW, will consist of 100 wind turbines producing five MW each.
  3. Ref 4 does not support the majority of claims made about Fântânele Wind Farm (139 2.5 MW turbines, blade diameter and height).
  4. I can find nothing about Maranchon Wind Farm in the ref 5.
  5. The ref 8 does not support the claim that the wind potential of Dobruja is 10,000 MW.
    Fixed. Mario1987 12:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The country's technical wind potential is between 3,000 MW and 9,000 MW. Can you explain the meaning of this sentence and how it relates to the previous sentence, where it is claimed that the wind potential of Romainia is 14,000 MW?
    • Total wind power capacity that can be assimilated by the national transport grid. Mario1987 12:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Not fixed. I do not see any changes. Ruslik_Zero 12:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The sentence The Romanian company Blue Investment will invest US$84 million in a 35 MW wind farm in Baia, Tulcea County that will have 14 Nordex N90 turbines producing 2.5 MW each should be moved to the next paragraph.
  8. Can you provide some background information about Dobruja region? This region is not mentioned in the table and its relevance is not clear.
    • The Dobruja region is composed of Constanta and Tulcea counties. Mario1987 12:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Not fixed. No changes. Ruslik_Zero 12:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you look i added the two counties The Dobruja (Constanţa and Tulcea counties) region has the second-highest wind potential in Europe. Mario1987 09:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Where in the ref 10 can I read that The Italian company Enel plans to build several wind farms with a total capacity of 1,400 MW ?
    • My mistake it is only 350 MW. Mario1987 12:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Where in ref 13 can I read that which have plans to build wind farms that will have a combined power output of 600 MW with total investments of $800 million?
    • Tweaked that a bit and added new numbers. Mario1987 12:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I do not see 310 MW in refs. Ruslik_Zero 12:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ref 17 states that the Green Company will invest in three 70MW wind farms which equals 210MW. The second ref states that Electrica will invest in one 100MW wind farm. And 210+100=310 MW. Mario1987 13:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. In the table the Capacity should be changed to Installed capacity.
    Done. Mario1987 12:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I do not have time to check all references but until they all are checked I will not support. For instance, I checked ref 17 and found that it does not contain any information about the size of investement (1400 million) or Blackstone.
    • No because it's in euro. One billion. Mario1987 12:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I meant that you should check all other refs and report results. Ruslik_Zero 12:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ruslik_Zero 08:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note FLC is currently short of reviewers; please consider reviewing one or more on the nomination list if you have not already (this message is being posted to all running FLCs). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Reliability of references Nergaal (talk) 04:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Nergaal (talk) 04:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
what makes these reliable?

The problem is that most of these are borderline reliable. I strongly suggest backing up most of these references with a second one that at least mentions part of the referenced information. And btw, delete the cancan one! Also, you may want to add another column for the references themselves, on the lines of this list. Nergaal (talk) 17:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nergaal (talk) 05:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • none of the references have authors listed, although about 2/3 should. Nergaal (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do the other reviewers thing about this? Mario1987 20:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OPPOSE I spent time on this list assuming that the nominator has done his job of putting adequate references for each of the numbers. But whan I went and checked each article I was shocked to find out that at the first couple of them at least one of the cost/capacity was missing, or even worse, wrong! I am not going to spend more time on this since wp:assume good faith doesn't seem to work here. Nergaal (talk) 18:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed the cost column but please show me a single ref that states the installed capacity wrong. Mario1987 19:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Valul lui Traian; (and I checked only the ones in consturction minus the money.ro refereces)
You're right on this one. Doesn't have any reference about the 10MW. I'll remove it from the list. Mario1987 09:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember well, the ref actually said something like 30MW; could you actually check the ref first? Nergaal (talk) 02:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Liteni should probably be Liteni-Dolhasca;
Fixed that. Mario1987 09:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. are you sure that Blue Investment Baia and Blue Planet Baia aren't the same thing?
No it isn't. Blue Planet is a separate company that is part of the Blue Investment holding. Mario1987 09:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. the project name column falls into the wp:OR. Absolutely none of the refs I just checked gives names for the project; they might end up with these names, but since most of the names aren't referenced I suggest switching the column name to Localoties or something like this. Furthermore, you seem to have created 20+ stubs about the farms that uses article names that have no reference. I strongly suggest merging those stubs into the localities they refer to, since that way at least there is no citation problem (at least for those under 100 MW or so).
Yes but wind projects usually get their name from the location in which they are constructed so i can't agree with what you posted above. Mario1987 09:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusion: this list is noway near FLing. Nergaal (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ref 2 redirects to the main page of the site rather than going to the exact source page. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now, but I hope to be able to support it soon.
    • The text at the beginning of the article seems disjointed -- the logic of the sequence of topics is not completely clear.
    • Also, there are "language" problems in the text at the beginning of the article. It needs to be copy-edited to become native-speaker-quality English.
    • A particular issue in rewriting the text is to ensure that the article does not make Wikipedia into a crystal ball. In describing future projects, use language like "is planned to be" or "was scheduled to be", not "will".
    • I am troubled by the lack of sources for some facts in the table. This is a difficult type of list to assemble because there is no single convenient source for all of the information. Nevertheless, it cannot become a Featured List until all of the information is supported by cited sources. --Orlady (talk) 05:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_wind_farm_projects_in_Romania/archive2&oldid=1143881286"