Talk:Wind turbine/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 09:05, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Please reply to each item with a brief textual comment like "Done" so I can see how we're progressing.

Comments

• There are several citations needed tags in the text.
  • (Done) Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 00:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• If the box of 3 portals is needed at all then it should go in External links. At the moment it's interrupting the column format of the References.
  • (Done) Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 19:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• The Airborne and Floating wind turbines are subtypes; they should be removed from "See also" and covered very briefly, linked, and cited in the main text.
  • (Done) Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 13:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• Some refs such as [39] Inwind, [40] Inwind, [73] De Vries, [79] Riviera, [126] Guinness need a date. Please check all the refs to ensure they have dates and publishers/websites.
  • (Done) Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 23:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

• Some of the authors are cited in "John R. Doe" format, others in "Doe, John R." I suggest we format all of the refs in "Doe, John R." for consistency and readability.
  • Would you mind giving the specific ones that aren't cited in Doe, John R. format? I don't see what you mean. Thanks. Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 01:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
    • Eh? for instance [7], [28], [29], [34], [37], [46], [48], [49], [92], [94]. So, [46] says "Michael Barnard" when it should say "Barnard, Michael". And so on. The easiest and best way to sort this out is to use "|last=Barnard |first=Michael" and the citation template will automatically format the thing for you.
      • By the way, I will not be available this weekend to work on the comments. Would you be able to give me extra time? I can definitely have it done by June 10. Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 02:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
        • No problem.
          • (Done) Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 23:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• The section of text named "References" should be renamed to "Wind power density" or similar; the name "References" is already in use (section 14) as in a million other articles for the list of inline refs.
  • (Done) Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 00:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

• The Records section is a mass of headings and very short paragraphs. Suggest it would work better as a table with columns for Record, Description, Location, and perhaps Constructor or Manufacturer.
  • (Done)Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 13:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

• The section "Comparison with fossil-fuel turbines" is misnamed as the alternatives named include nuclear. The discussion of birds killed by cats and buildings is also nothing to do with fossil-fuel turbines. Some renaming or restructuring is needed.
  • (Done) Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 13:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
    • Knowledgegatherer23 (Not Done) Um, I wasn't asking you to suppress the (correct and appropriate) mention of nuclear, which remains a low-carbon alternative, no matter how unpopular; it's also fully dispatchable, which wind isn't. Please put it back, and as this thread suggested, rename the section to match the contents.
      • Sorry for the misunderstanding, all fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledgegatherer23 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
        • Thanks, certainly an improvement. I'd suggest also comparing wind's overall carbon output (from manufacturing, etc.) with nuclear as it's relevant and in a way quite a key point.

• In "Demolition and recycling", the advertisement for Casper, Wyoming is both uncited and out of place - no recycling is involved, and the result is long-lived waste in a landfill, not exactly something Wikipedia should be advocating.
  • (Done) Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 19:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• Ref [15] Wyatt needs page number(s).
  • (Done) Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 21:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

• Ref [17] Vermont Business Magazine is a dead link. You may be able to retrieve it at archive.org or similar.
  • (Done) Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 00:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Ref [51] needs publisher and date.
  • (Done) Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 00:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Ref [53] Singh needs ISBN and should be formatted using the Cite book template.
  • I think this is done... Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 00:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Ref [58] NREL should name and wikilink the publisher (|publisher= ...).
  • Same here. Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 00:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Ref [72] Composites World needs author, date, and publisher (Wood, Karen; 31 May 2012; Composites World).
  • I couldn't find this source. I think it was replaced. Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 00:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Sources

• "However, many of the elements in the blade can be extracted and repurposed." Really? How? At what cost and with what waste products? Who says so, and with what evidence? Who disagrees? Wikipedia should not be accepting commercial arguments like this, especially not in Wikipedia's voice. An energy company is not a neutral and objective source: in fact, we should not be treating energy companies like www.midamericanenergy.com (101) as Reliable Sources at all, so we should treat anything they say as advertising (i.e. unusable) except for bare facts about themselves (they are based in Iowa...).
  • I found opposition from more reliable sources so I removed the quoted info. Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 00:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• I think we had better check all the sources for reliability. The following appear (prima facie) to be unsuitable for Wikipedia: 1, 3, 6, 86, 101, 108, 125. Some are borderline: 99, American Wind Energy Association, is the manufacturers' club so its "fact-checking" may not be entirely neutral, for example. 108 "Clean Energy Ideas" looks like a partisan website, and while it sounds good there is no evidence it's independent and reliable.
  • What do you suggest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledgegatherer23 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
    • We've been through most of them by now. I think [108] is just about acceptable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.