The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:07, 23 December 2008 [1].

Scout Moor Wind Farm[edit]

Nominator(s): Malleus Fatuorum

I'm nominating this article on the United Kingdom's largest onshore wind farm on behalf on the Greater Manchester WikiProject. It's relatively short at 1,317 words, but I believe that it's nevertheless comprehensive and meets the FA criteria. Malleus Fatuorum 22:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - All images have descriptions and verifiable licenses. Awadewit (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks good, overall. The above comments are minor, and should be easy to fix. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All changed apart from the first point, which I don't have the answer to. Nev1 (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a bit to the lead mentioning the only larger offshore windfarm, Kentish Flats. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Changed to support. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've changed the "they work for you" reference to the original Hansard source. Richerman (talk) 09:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • NUAE is a german company name - what it stands for is not given anywhere - not in English anyway! I've changed the title of the ref to NUAE Geotextiles Ltd. News.
  • Rochdaleonline seems to be online news only, however the opening date is non-controversial and I've added a newspaper reference from two days earlier that says it will be officially opened on that date. Richerman (talk) 14:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed yahoo newsgroup and new enegy focus refs
  • Removed The Stringer ref and added missing publisher Richerman (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A protest group was formed to resist the proposals" You never mentioned proposals before. Shouldn't this read "A protest group was formed to resist the construction of the wind farm" or something similar that fits better in the flow?
  • "Visible from as far away as south Manchester, the wind farm was officially opened on 25 September 2008, after "years of controversy",[4] at a cost of £50 million." Contains too many commas. Bad prose.
  • "The underlying geology broadly belongs to the Lower Coal Measures and is a mixture of hard rock and soft shale" (missing word)
  • "spans across to" needs rewording.
  • The last bit of the history section had me confused. Are you sure we need exact quotes here below the bill quote?
  • "exacerbated", "subsidence" and "grout" are not the sort of word I would think the typical reader knows.

I did some minor editing of my own during this review.- Mgm|(talk) 12:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "proposals" changed to "proposed construction".
  • "Visible from as far away ..." rewritten.
  • Added missing word in "The underlying geology ...".
  • "spans across to" changed to "extends to".
  • Minor rewrite to avoid use of the word "exacerbated", grout and subsidence now linked.
--Malleus Fatuorum 13:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All my comments were addressed. Karanacs (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Comments[reply]

Karanacs (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Added distance from south Manchester.
  • Added the total area of the moor, and the area occupied by the wind farm.
--Malleus Fatuorum 21:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved information from lead to body of article Richerman (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure which reference you're referring to, but I removed some text along with a reference as the reliability of the source was questioned by Ealdgyth. I've fixed the sentence you mention and I'll have a look to see if I can find any more like it. Richerman (talk) 12:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've dealt with the fragemented sentences now. Richerman (talk) 23:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


OK but what do you mean by JV shares? Richerman (talk) 11:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What are their respective shares in the Joint Venture? Should be available online in the Annual Reports etc. Johnbod (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, United Utilities aren't mentioned any more on Peel holdings' website and it seems they pulled out of the project. I've added a line to that effect.Richerman (talk) 00:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the useful life expectancy of 25 years, but the only online annual report is from 2002 and there is no mention in it of wind energy proposals. Richerman (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. Johnbod (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think all the points have been addressed now, is the article ready for promotion to FA? Richerman (talk) 15:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I read the articles correctly, the nameplate capacity of 65 whotsits, often mentioned, actually has a capacity factor of 27% (tucked away in the final table) - ie in the absence of a change in weather patterns of biblical proportions only 27% of the nameplate capacity is ever likely to be achieved. Nor do we know what figures are initial pre-operating projections and which actual. I don't know anything about the subject but the article doesn't explain these matters well & I suspect is not written with a depth of understanding of the issues. Johnbod (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any of us new much about this stuff when we started but you learn as you go along - especially from other articles about the subject. I will put something in about the points you mention. Richerman (talk) 11:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an explanation of the capacity factor with a pointer to the main article on the subject Wind power. Does that make it clearer? Richerman (talk) 19:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It won't be promoted with only one support declaration. While the individual comments might have been addressed, it might be best to figure out what other changes are needed for the other reviewers to change from "comments" to "support". Karanacs (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it has two. :) –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 19:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see yours right next to the strikeout. I think I need to clean my glasses ;) Anyway, Sandy archives on Tuesday and Sunday, so this will likely be open all week. Karanacs (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not at all familiar with this process and I don't know what else I can do other than address the points that are raised. Should I ask those who have made the comments whether they have changed to support or would that be canvassing? Richerman (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As long as you don't specifically ask for supports, it is fine to notify reviewers that you've addressed their comments. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 19:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notes - 1. Two paragraphs for lead with slight expansion (one or two sentences). 2. Alternate some images. The first could start on the left. 3. Last part of "Construction" first paragraph (starting with "The weather constrained") could be split to form its own paragraph so it doesn't all flow together via the blockquote. 4. Reduce "see also" by introducing the wikilinks in the text. "Wind power in the United Kingdom" and "Wind power" definitely belong somewhere in the body of the text and in the lead (windfar is already there, so wind power may be unnecessary). 5. Last paragraph of "Geography" should have a few more sentences. 6. The same for the last paragraph of "Construction". I'm opposed to tiny one or two line paragraphs that seem to stick out and feel out of place. Not all of these are necessary, but they will help with the minor aspects. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the lead and the geography section, alternated the images, split the paragraphs as suggested, and got the "see also's" down to one, with the rest incorporated into the text. I've also removed the last paragraph break in Construction.Richerman (talk) 01:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is a 1991 travel guide a good source for a quotation on geology in an FAC article. And is it worth citing twice in same short paragraph, as it is in the first paragraph under "Geology"? (See: "steep escarpments separated by sloping shelves" which is a quote from Sellers, Gladys (1991). Walking the South Pennines. Cicerone Press. ISBN 978-1852840419.) I know the author is "one of the best know guidebook writers in the north" (from the book's back cover), but I am wondering if WP:RS allows guidebooks for geological citations?
  • The information referenced by the guide is hardly contentious, I don't see a problem with using it as a source in this case. Nev1 (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response My complaint is directed at setting a precedent for using a travel guide as a geological reference in an FAC. (In WP:RS it is suggested such sources are not the best.) Surely a legitimate geological source can be found. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, reference 12 is piped with a link to this article: Chetham Society 1856. Quotes from it are cited four times in one short paragraph, in the first paragraph under "History". Is there not a rule against an article linking to itself?
  • The Harvard template automatically links to the bibliography section, this has never held back FACs before and I don't believe it's over linking. It's purpose, especially in articles with longer bibliographies, is to take the user straight to the relevant book in the bibliography. Nev1 (talk) 12:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - It is hard for me to accept that the Harvard template automatically pipes, not to the society that published the quotes, Chetham Society 1856, but to this article, Scout Moor Wind Farm at FAC. That is due to piping and that should be fixed. It is a principle that an article should not contain links to itself. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I see. Where does it say this? It wouldn't take much to change it from the template to another format, as this article only uses it twice, but I'm concerned that this issue may needlessly hinder other FACs. Nev1 (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The templates have been removed. Nev1 (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think are too many quotations for such a short article (disregarding the sources). Is this material such that the editor cannot use original wording? It is not like quoting a famous author or featuring compelling prose that could justify using quotations. The quotations seem to be facts that could be stated without using quotations.
  • Quotes only make up a small proportion of the article. In the instance of the etymology, quotations allow precision, rephrasing it might lead to accidental inaccuracies. Also, quoting people's opinions later in the article ensures that their meaning is fully conveyed. Nev1 (talk) 13:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reponse - Quotes make up an unnecessary part of the article, especially when quotes are not people's opinions that cannot be summarized in an encyclopedic style (which is the job of writers of an encyclopedia, after all. (If the editor thinks "rephrasing it might lead to accidental inaccuracies", then the editor has no belief that an encyclopedia can be written in original prose.) User talk:BuddingJournalist makes the same complaint above: "I'm not liking the way quotations are handled. Too many dull "so-and-so said, "Quote"", sometimes with little context. Moreover, perhaps this is a style issue, but I was taught that when introducing quotations with "said" or the like, a comma should precede the quotation." Although some of his complaints were address, he was not completely satisfied. Example: (first para under "History", using the piped redirect to this article)

In England, scout hills "are long ridges of rock, so called from the Anglo-Saxon Sceotan, as being shot out, horizontally or nearly so, to a great length".[1] Scout is a corruption of the Old English "sceot", meaning "shot" or "to shoot", this suggests Anglo-Saxon settlement in the locality at a very ancient time.[1] Kinder Scout in Derbyshire shares this etymology.[1] The village of Shuttleworth, to the immediate west of Scout Moor, derives its name from Sceot-hulls-worth, meaning "dwelling-place by the Scout hills".[1]

  1. ^ a b c d Chetham Society 1856, p. 260.
    • This is four short sentences, each on referenced by the same source. Also, the manner in which the quotes is used is confusing, as it is not clear if some words is quoted because it is someone else's wording, or because it is a word being used as a word quote-use justification. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it not over using a reference to cite the same source four times in a row in a short paragraph, as Chetham Society 1856 is in the first paragraph under "History", especially with no intervening citations? —Mattisse (Talk) 04:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Over referencing? I didn't think such a thing was possible. Using the reference more than once in succession has no detrimental effect and reinforces that all the information came from the same source. Also, if someone were to introduce new information into the paragraph (with a source), it might give the false impression that the new source references all the information before it. Nev1 (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response - Yes, there is such a thing as over referencing. For example, I have seen this raised as a legitimate complaint by [[User:Tony1|Tony in the past. Referencing each sentence in a paragraph to the same source is over referencing. See the first paragraph under "History" quoted above. Footnotes are considered distracting to the reader, so using them unnecessarily is not desirable. Your reasoning would require a footnote after every sentence. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm of the inclination of Nev1 too - I'd much rather see "over" referencing than have any kind of confusion of where a statement or factoid came from. Yes it can seem like overkill, but I don't think it's a bad thing for WP or our readers in this case or others. Indeed if this was an academic paper being submitted for assessment one wouldn't be marked down at all, quite the contrary. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plus, in this case a reference is required after every quotation. Nev1 (talk) 12:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response - Of course a reference is required after every quotation. The question is, why are there so many quotations that are not anyone's opinion and could be rephrased in the editor's own words. Is that not what writing an article for an encyclopedia about? Otherwise, writing an article for Wikipedia would just be a question of assembling quotations and sources.
    Please see Tony's comments above, whose complaints I have reiterated:[2]
    "Two quotes from refs that you've wound into the main prose just ahead of the ref numeral are a little forced; I can see that you want to verify that these were the actual words in the source, but perhaps it's good enough to drop the quotes from the single last word here: The geological diversity of Scout Moor, which weathers at different rates, has given it a landscape of "steep escarpments separated by sloping shelves", although the main dome of the moor is flat and "rounded".[4] No one will accuse you of plagiarism. Also, ref [4] appears here in four successive sentences; these are hardly contentious statements, so the earlier ones could be rationed."

    —Mattisse (Talk) 16:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • The paragraph has been reworked and now only uses the same reference twice. I hope this is acceptable. Nev1 (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    More