Talk:Renewable energy in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Renewable energy in the United States was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: July 30, 2007
WikiProject Energy
Energy Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, which collaborates on articles related to energy.
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of mid importance within energy.

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Environment
Portal		 This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment.
The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
A story relating to the article Renewable energy in the United States (or a previous version of it) was included in the news section of the Energy Portal. Please consider updating the portal news with any major developments on this topic.

Contents

[edit] GA Failed

So, I'm a bit confused... is this article still under construction? If not, then it fails broad coverage and the GA immediately as there is no mention of hydro power (am I missing something? for instance, the A rated Renewable energy in Iceland discusses it) . Aside from that, there are these problems:

  • "Renewable Energy Organizations" section reads like an advertisement, the difference in tone between this section and the rest of the article is marked. I really hope it wasn't copied verbatim from somewhere...
  • "Wind power costs" subsection is a verbatim copy from the Energy Policy pdf.
  • Is the EESI logo picture really necessary?

That's all that comes to mind right now with regards to the GA criteria. Everything else looks fine, barring more prevalent copy and paste. --Meowist 06:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Failed response

So, I'm a bit confused... is this article still under construction? If not, then it fails broad coverage and the GA immediately as there is no mention of hydro power (am I missing something? for instance, the A rated Renewable energy in Iceland discusses it) .

No, the article is not still under construction and, yes, you are missing something. The title of this article is not Renewable energy in the United States, which is a much broader topic. The article is called Renewable energy commercialization in the US and is about new renewable energy technologies which are being commercialized at the present time. The most important of these is wind power. Obviously this point needs to be better explained.
Hydro power is not being commercialized in the United States currently? You mean to tell me no one is proposing small and major hydro plants and no one in making and selling turbines?... come on. The aspect is totally missing and this article goes into great detail about the newest and greatest solar and wind tech while ignoring hydro.--Meowist 22:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Aside from that, there are these problems:

  • "Renewable Energy Organizations" section reads like an advertisement, the difference in tone between this section and the rest of the article is marked. I really hope it wasn't copied verbatim from somewhere...
The section was based on the relevant WP articles which are wikilinked and reliable sources are provided. Again this discussion on "Renewable energy organisations" is part of the emphasis on non-technical issues relating to commercialization. These organisations are shaping the deployment of the new technologies.
That's nice, but my criticism was not about the factual accuracy, but the tone - it is not encyclopedic. The text existing like that in another article is no excuse - this article was put up for GA and standards apply. --Meowist 22:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • "Wind power costs" subsection is a verbatim copy from the Energy Policy pdf.
These four lines can easily be revised.
  • Is the EESI logo picture really necessary?
Happy to remove the logo.

That's all that comes to mind right now with regards to the GA criteria. Everything else looks fine, barring more prevalent copy and paste. --Meowist 06:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I deliberately listed this article in the "Social Sciences" section of the Good Article candidates page so that it would be clear that this was not just a discussion of a shopping list of technologies. Perhaps there is a reviewer who is more familiar with the public acceptance of innovations. I would appreciate a re-appraisal by another reviewer please.
If possible, I would also appreciate getting a reviewer who doesn't have so many reviews on the go at once. This article was selected by Meowist from the GA candidates list three days ago, and is one of three articles which he has been reviewing during that time. (The other articles were Diet of Japan and Reincarnation research.) -- Johnfos 07:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm terribly sorry I didn't manage to get to your article quickly, but people have jobs and such. Also, I don't see what relevance the fact that I was simultaneously reviewing 2 other articles has - it doesn't taint me or make my reviewing inherently flawed. Nonetheless, you're welcome to another review. --Meowist 22:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New GA review

Hi. After a review of the article and the previous GA discussion, I think the article is pretty close to GA status, but not just yet. It is certainly a very good article, very informative in its limited scope, but there do seem to be some nagging issues (some of which have already be mentioned but still persist). My suggestions mostly piggy back of the previous suggestions made by Meowist:

  • The "Renewable Energy Organizations" still reads like an advertisement. Part of the problem lies with the prose style of the original pages, especially since none of them are referenced very well anyways (a grand total of three references among four articles. And all three are in the American Council on Renewable Energy article). What I might suggest is to either:
  • Eliminate the prose altogether (most of it is just copy and pasted from the main articles anyways) and merely provide links to the main pages, perhaps with an overarching bit of prose for the section as a whole.
OR
  • Rewrite the main articles a bit (fixing prose style, adding references, and expanding content), so that appropriate portions of the articles can be transcluded. (This option is more work, but in the long term would probably give better results)
The main issue is that you are depending on the strength of the original articles, which do not hold up under GA scrutiny. Afterall, the entire text from the American Council on Renewable Energy has been transcluded onto this page. Seems kind of sloppy, not to mention unnecessary.
  • The "Wind power costs" is still pretty much verbatim from the source (just reworded slightly). I don't see this as a deal breaker necessarily but, again, it seems somewhat sloppy.
  • Overall the article is well referenced, but the format jumps around alot. Ideally, all references should be done using a citation template.
  • The "External links" section is a bit bloated.
  • The "Future power stations" category is misleading.
  • The intro needs to be expanded considerably, to effectively summarize the article. An initial list of renewable energy sources (bio, wind, solar, etc.) might be a good place to start. A sentence like that is in the "Rationale for renewables" section, but might me more appropriate in the introduction.
  • The "Aesthetics and the environment" in the wind section seems unneeded to the topic at hand. Or, conversely, it may just need to state more clearly its importance to the topic.
  • And, along with Meowist's concerns, what about hydro? Also ocean power systems? And biomass? (I'm ignorant on this topic, but I assume biomass is different than biofuel?) These are mentioned briefly in the background section but that's it. Even if there has been limited commercialization in those areas, explain why.

Overall I think it is a very good article, but it does need some work. For the time being I'll put the nomination on hold (rather than failing it outright). Hopefully you can find some time to implement some of my and Meowist's suggestions. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to ask here. Drewcifer3000 12:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder since I forgot to put it in my original review. Since the GA nomination is on hold, you have a total of 7 days to address the issues noted above. On July 31 the nomination will fail, but you're still welcome to renominate the article at a later date. Drewcifer3000 08:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but I have to admit that I'm not inclined to take the article in the direction suggested, and am moving on to other things. -- Johnfos 09:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've gone ahead and failed its nomination. Drewcifer3000 09:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Renewable energy in the United States

I would like an additional article about Renewable energy in the United States, including generation of renewable energy in the USA.--Nukeless (talk) 13:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)