Talk:Wind power in Texas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Wind power in Texas 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: September 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.

[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 August 10, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Good.
2. Factually accurate?: Good.
3. Broad in coverage?: The coverage is good; however, the article's organization is problematic. The last part from "King Mountain Wind Farm (278 MW)" to "Sand Bluff Wind Farm (90 MW)" seems too much like a list, and the article has too many sections.
4. Neutral point of view?: Good.
5. Article stability? Good.
6. Images?: A few images would improve the article.

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:07, 10 August 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for reviewing. I have requested that an image be included in the article, using the reqphoto tag above. I have also removed some section headings to make the article less like a list. I have also expanded one section, and as more info becomes available will be able to expand other sections. -- Johnfos 21:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If images are the only problem, then I'm going to promote this, that's not a reason to not promote. Wizardman 19:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted. The structural problem with the list of the various wind farms has not been fixed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This problem has now been overcome, as only five of the largest wind farms are listed separately now... Johnfos 22:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DHMO's GA review (on hold)

  • The "Summary table: Wind farms in Texas" table doesn't look too good - I think the redlinks should be removed. You should also play around with the column widths - the second column is too narrow, and the header looks bad.
  • Got another image? 2 would be better then one, if relevant.
  • A lot of the redlinks throughout the article should be removed, or the article created.
  • Other wind farms section - convert to list/table. I've tagged it for this - the way it's written now isn't good, as it's clearly a list but is disguised as prose.

Those are my GA comments (aswell as anything/everything requested above that hasn't been done) - and below is an auto-PR for some extra suggestions. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 04:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 04:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Gee, Giggy, I think you're being a bit tough, and will just have to accept that this article is not going to be a GA. Thanks anyway... Johnfos 06:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template needs to be moved

Hi Anphibian, and thank you for another useful template. But I really think it needs to be put at the end of the article. To have it in the "See also" section interrupts the flow of the article. Johnfos 20:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Have moved template now... Johnfos 00:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)