Talk:Solar power plants in the Mojave Desert

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Solar power plants in the Mojave Desert has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
September 9, 2007 Good article nominee Listed

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Energy     (Rated GA-Class) Energy Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, which collaborates on articles related to energy. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale. Mid This article is on a subject of mid importance within energy. Help with this template 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 (Rated GA-Class) 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. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale. WikiProject California (Rated GA-Class) This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.

[edit] removed build time=

build times are dependent on regulation and opposition just as with conventional energy. long lead times aren't really an issue, look at how fast they are building power plants in china. at this point build time can't really be cited as an advantage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.181.207 (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nominee for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of September 9, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Good.

2. Factually accurate?: Good.

3. Broad in coverage?: Expand/create some sections, for example development of them in general.

4. Neutral point of view?: Good.

5. Article stability? Good.

6. Images?: Good.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Treating nine plants as one collective plant is misleading

The source material refers to the nine plants in SEGS as having a combined output of 354 MW. This does not make for the largest solar power installation in the world, since the nine plants are not a single installation. Unless they are...are they? I suggest changing it, but I am not in a position to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.160.84 (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)