Talk:Renewable energy in Australia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Renewable energy in Australia was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of July 23, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: I'm not particularly fond of the lead...it doesn't really work for me. I can't put it into words...I guess the tone isn't that formal, and it doesn't seem to fully summarise everything. Sorry if this makes no sense. I've tried to "improve" it, please try and follow my lead there and make it better.
There are quite a lot of subsections, and some (such as Solar photovoltaics, and Public opinion as noted under thorough) are quite small. Merging or expanding them would help.
2. Factually accurate?: Y
3. Broad in coverage?: Some more information on public opinion would be nice, as this isn't something that can be dealt with without considering the community views (and for the record, I'm Australian :D)
4. Neutral point of view?: Y
5. Article stability? Y
6. Images?: Y

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Giggy UCP 06:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Giggy, and thanks for reviewing. I have expanded the Solar photovoltaic section and the Public opinion section, and expanded the lead. How does the article look now? -- Johnfos 01:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, passed. Well done! By the way, I really don't know which category at WP:GA to add this too. Could you suggest one? I have it in Geology and geophysics, but that may be wrong...so if you could find one it would be great (and place it there yourself if you like, or you can tell me and I'll do it). Giggy UCP 04:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I had a close look at the categories and am really not sure where the article fits in either, so will just go along with what you think. Thanks. -- Johnfos 04:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
You're happy with the current position? Ok, that's all that counts :D Giggy UCP 04:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 06:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This article should be moved from renewable energy commercialisation in Australia to renewable energy in Australia to conform to the same format as all the other RE in country articles because there is no such thing as renewable energy without the commercial development of that energy. It doesn't grow on trees. Oh wait, it does, in the form of biomass. However, you know what I mean - it takes commercial development to provide that energy in a usable form, whether it is wind, wave, tide, solar, hydro, geothermal... 199.125.109.134 (talk) 05:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose move. This is a perfectly good WP:GA article and I am against moving the page at this time, as I believe article quality would suffer. WP articles need to have titles that match the actual content of the article, and that would simply not be the case if the name was moved. Johnfos (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
    What you are doing is building a garage where there is no house. Where is the RE in Australia article? Create that and use this as a subarticle. Until that is done, there is no point in having this article, and it is extremely unlikely that there ever will be a need for a subarticle only about commercialisation. All of this article is better used as a basis for an RE in AU article. Add whatever is needed, but what is not needed is a subarticle when there is no main article. It's like writing an article about yo-yo commercialisation with no article on yo-yo's, or since this is Australia, an article about boomerang commercialisation with no article on the boomerang. It just doesn't make any sense. We have an expression for it, too, it is calling putting the cart before the horse. Plus it violates naming conventions - use the most common name. Want to know how many google hits there are for REC in AU? 622. How many for RE in AU? 13,600. That would be more. A lot more. 199.125.109.134 (talk) 02:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support move. It's not a perfectly good article. It is a perfectly flawed article because it fails to cover the subject matter properly, pretending to be only about commercialisation of a subject for which there is no article. 199.125.109.45 (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support move. This would be a sensable move. It make the title a bit more concise and a bit more generalized, and the article looks to me like it neatly fits the title "RE in Australia" better than it fits the current title. I also agree with the above statement that it is silly to create an article about "the commercialisation of" something that does not rate an article of its own. Also, while it is true that this article has passed the WP:GA process, that means most of the work is already done for you, if you want to improve it further and get it through the process again. Remember, Wikipedia is not about achievement, it's about improvement. Good luck! Wilhelm meis (talk) 12:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
    AFAIK an article retains its GA or FA status if the name of the article changes. The reasons for a name change tend to be unrelated to the quality of the article. 199.125.109.45 (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Removed section

I have removed the following section, which was located immediately after the lead. It is poorly written, poorly referenced, and not properly integrated into the article: Johnfos (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Renewable resources

With a ready availability of land relative to population, sunny climate, winds, long coastline and existence of underground geothermal resources, Australia would seem to have a natural advantage in developing renewable energy technologies.[1] 12% of Australia's electricity comes from renewables, mainly hydroelectricity.

[edit] Solar

Australia is home to one of the largest solar projects in the world, the 154 MW Solar power station in Victoria.

[edit] Wind

The country has ample wind resources, but has been slow to build wind farms. The largest are the Portland Wind Project and the Waubra Wind Farm.

[edit] Hydro electricity

Australia is mostly a relatively flat continent, but does generate about 10% of its electricity from hydroelectricity. The most famous project is the Snowy Mountains Scheme.[2] The country has invested AU$6B in hydro, with 200 million of that in the last ten years.[3]

[edit] Geothermal

There are no geysers or naturally hot rock formations, but many locations have temperatures of over 200°C at a depth of 5 km. The largest geothermal power plant, at Birdsville, Queensland, provides 150 kW of power from a depth of 1221 m.

[edit] Hydroelectricity

Is there a reason the article goes into details of virtually every form of renewable energy except hydro-electricity? Shall I start working on it, or it is excluded for other reasons? -- Chuq (talk) 05:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Please start working on it. Johnfos (talk) 06:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
See above. 199.125.109.80 (talk) 05:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Delisted GA

I've added some tags to this article, indicating what work is needed. In the meantime I've delisted it as a GA. Feel free to re-nominate it at WP:GAN later on if you wish. Johnfos (talk) 07:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)