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

Reviewer: Rcsprinter123 (talk · contribs) 20:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to review the article. I'm going take it section at a time and if each thing I flag up gets marked "Y", we'll put it past the criteria and hopefully it'll pass. Rcsprinter (talkin' to me?) @ 20:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section analysis

Lead

• I believe a better first picture could be used to amply illustrate the subject. Turbines are a good thing to use, but the current image (File:Pretty flamingos - geograph.org.uk - 578705.jpg) doesn't do them any justice; you can't even see them clearly. I would suggest perhaps using File:BANGUI WINDMILL,ILOCOS NORTE 2.jpg (I apologise for the rediculous title, but I don't hold filemover on Commons), or maybe a nice closeup like File:Micro WindMill.jpg, which would need to be removed from lower down, or File:Maranchón Complex Windpark.JPG. Your choice which. Y done Richerman (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Is a colon the best punctuation of choice in "useful for of energy such as using: wind turbines to make...? I would suggest removing it altogether because such a small list which is only a few examples does not need that; it seems spare and extra.Y done Richerman (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The final paragraph of the lead only has refs at the end, spread them out a bit.Y

History

• There's nothing sourcing the last part of the 3rd paragraph about multibladed turbines in America, a timescale for that would also be useful - how long is "many years"?Y
• There is a red link to Johannes Juul, can this either be delinked or created because it reflects negatively on the article.
  • Done, but see WP:Red link. This is not necessary even in an FA. Added link to Danish article. Delphi234 (talk) 07:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wind energy

• Map on the left is too small to read, maybe enlarge it some and include a note in the caption explaining it can be seen larger with a click.Y
• Distribution of windspeed and high altitude winds sections are unreferenced.Y

Wind farms

• The first part until Feeding into grid is unreferenced. Y
• It keeps going on about MW in that first section - it needs an initial explanation that megawatts are used, not everybody will automatically know that. Y done Richerman (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wind power capacity and production

• In the tables just above Growth trends, there is no indication of what the hell TWh is, and MW again. I had to Google it myself to find out. Say something about terawatt hours. This is only done once in the whole article in the fifth paragraph in Small scale wind-power.Y
• Graphs in Growth trends need enlarging slightly, but are visible at current.
  • Size is set by thumb user preferences from 120px to 300px, but I increased them 5%. Delphi234 (talk) 08:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• More wikilinks throughout the section would be nice, as it uses a lot of technical language, especially in Capacity factor and Penetration.Y
• There is an irrelevant image in Capacity factor of a wind turbine under construction. This would be better elsewhere. Y done - I've removed the image as it isn't really relevant to any section. Richerman (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Economics

• The second section of Incentives and community benefits is unreferenced.Y
• It doesn't represent a very worldwide view in Cost trends. It concentrates mainly on the United States, with mentions of Britain, Spain and Germany but nothing from Africa or Asia. Wouldn't one expect some wind farms in Australia with those ideal flat landscapes? Mention those. Y

• No issues with Environmental effects.

Politics

• Only one image and that's in the third subsection. Consider adding some representing public opinion. Y
• The Public opinion section content itself is good displaying statistics but more wikilinks wanted again. Y
• Sixth paragraph of Community is unreferenced. Y
• Worldwide view wanted again in Community, just the West spoken about, mainly UK.

• No issues with Small scale wind power, apart from perhaps the images could be underneath each other instead of the ugly side-by-side which squeezes the text in the middle? Y done - I've removed one image as there wasn't really room for both Richerman (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll analyse more soon. Rcsprinter (talkin' to me?) @ 20:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

The number of each ref I give is correct as of revision 531794627, if any have been added since they will have moved around.

• Ref 3 is dead Y
• Ref 5 doesn't let you on without server permission Y
• Refs 6, 21, 22 & 23 are dead Y
• Ref 26 does not back up the statement Y
• Ref 40 is dead Y
• Ref 41 is not a direct citation Y
• Ref 47 needs updating to its new location here Y
• Ref 50 needs a ((da icon)) because it's in Danish. This also means I can't read it but it's just a table of numbers. Y
  • Actually there are two heading rows, one in Danish one in English. Delphi234 (talk) 05:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Likewise with ref 54 but ((de icon)) Y

Checking more references tomorrow. Rcsprinter (constabulary) @ 20:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget these are from the revision I linked to above.

• Refs 56, 69, 70, 71, 72, 78, 80, and 81 are dead. Y
• Refs 57, 59, 60, 118 and 58 redirect to the site's main page Y
• Refs 66, 120, 142 and 110 needs login information to view Y
• Refs 82, 85, 96, 102, 115, 116, 127, 136, 140, and 144 are dead. Y
• Ref 84 is a blog and not reliable
  • Replaced, but no reason to believe that the quote was unreliable or inaccurate. Delphi234 (talk) 09:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 86 should be a note; it is not a citation Y
• Ref 90 does not link to anything specific Y
• Ref 139 needs formatting properly and the link tagging Spanish (((es icon))) Y
• Refs 150, 156, 164, 168 are dead Y
• Ref 165 is generic, as is 169 Y
• I can't check the book references but I will assume good faith and hope they all exist and provide the right info

When these are all fixed we'll look at the criteria. Rcsprinter (tell me stuff) @ 20:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): 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.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   I haven't checked the rationales and things, but I'm trusting they're all fine, as most of the images are from Commons.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: