Talk:Ocean Wind

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Djflem (talk). Self-nominated at 10:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

  • New enough, long enough, well sourced. QPQ done. Hook in policy. Earwig shows minor copyvio in the paragraph starting “Ørsted U.S. Offshore Wind...”, please reword this. The hook could be more concise: “ that Ocean Wind will become the largest offshore wind farm in the United States?”
Onceinawhile (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ALT is fine by me.Djflem (talk) 07:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Onceinawhile (talk) 08:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This nomination is not ready as there are numerous bald URLs and also dead links. I started formatting the references but too many didn't open. IMO a different hook should be sought, as by 2024 there may be bigger wind farms. Yoninah (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Yoninah:. Refs are all formatted now.Djflem (talk) 09:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did some spot checking and am convinced it is ok to say "...is expected to become..." or similar, if that would work. See for example this recent article [1] which reviews all the major planned offshore wind farms. Ocean Wind is definitely the biggest scheduled by 2024. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Djflem: is that the best you can do for footnotes 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17? Yoninah (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC) Yoninah (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Yoninah: Refs done. Hook can stay. Djflem (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Restoring tick for ALT1, though I have my reservations about the hookiness of the hook. Yoninah (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This nomination has been bothering me for a long time: the wording of the hook strikes me as a violation of WP:CRYSTAL: this is a proposed wind farm, the construction hasn't even started yet, and schedules are notorious for being pushed out by years. A lot can go wrong between now and then, so I have struck ALT1. Wording like "as proposed" and/or "is set to become" could deal with the hook issue; another issue is the prose, for example, in the "On-shore interconnection" sub-section, where what's written doesn't make sense. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset: have "unstruck" my original hook & edited the section in question.Djflem (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Djflem, I was thinking that there might be an interesting hook to be made of the fact that the 1100 megawatt Ocean Wind will be using the decomissioned 619 megawatt Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station's electrical infrastructure to connect to the New Jersey grid. (That's a 77% greater generating capacity from wind than from nuclear.) The generation capacity of Oyster Creek would need to be added to that section, which I'm afraid still needs further prose work. The original hook might be more interesting if its size were given, or some indication of how it compares to the current largest (again, this would need to be added to the article). BlueMoonset (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset: You are welcome to add any info and more references you'd like to to build out that section the along the lines you're suggesting, but don't know that it would make the hook any more interesting. I will trim it the basics (leaving the references in place) clearing the way. The three ALTS are cited inline, and a few editors have found them fine, and think it best to not hold it up any longer.Djflem (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging Onceinawhile and Yoninah: would you be okay with the original hook? Or is another approach needed? If the latter, and you think my idea above sounds interesting, I'll see what I can do to turn it into an actual hook and add the necessary sourced material to the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I quite like your “is set to become” or “ is currently set to become” solution. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset: I'm glad at least someone agreed with my assessment that a lot could change between now and 2024. I'm all for a different hook. Yoninah (talk) 00:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, here's a first attempt at an alternate approach to the hook, now that I've redone that section of the article:
There are probably additional approaches, and if these aren't hooky enough we might try to add back that this is the largest proposed one in the U.S. Also, "is to connect to" could become "has secured the rights to connect to" (or even "is set to connect to") if that seems better. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first is the best; others try to say too much & are too wordy. Hooks with the superlatives (biggest, smallest, most, least), like this are "hooky". Additionally, Ocean Wind is an "offshore" wind farm, an important fact (which is a big deal since there is only one small operating in the USA). "Of all proposed" makes it more than clear that it is proposed (not crystal ball). Technically it isn't in NJ, the territorial jurisdiction of which ends 3 miles from the low water line.Djflem (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Djflem, we tend to give a certain amount of deference to the nominator, so if Yoninah is okay with the original hook at this point, then I'll let her supply the tick. If not, here's an ALT2b based on ALT2a that addresses the factual issues with the original ALT2 variants, both now struck (I think the comparison with the nuclear power plant is more effective than a superlative):
Adding something like "the largest such in the U.S.," before "is to connect to" would add a superlative if it's needed/desirable. —BlueMoonset (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging User:Lee Vilenski, User:BlueMoonset, User:Yoninah, User:Onceinawhile

"is to connect to" is an odd irregular form to speak about the future and is not effective in a hook; plus it's a crystal ball: How do we know it's going to connect(?), since as has been mentioned, anything can change. The link to concisely handled "of all proposed" offshore windfarms is better than (the uncertain connection) to the closed nuclear power plant. Djflem (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, I think I've spent enough time on this nomination. I had already covered the "is to connect to" by supplying alternates phrasings above that certainly aren't "crystal ball", but those are being ignored. I'll let the rest of you hash this out, but if you don't think that the comparison showing a new offshore windfarm having significantly more generating capacity than a nuclear power plant is hooky and interesting, then we have very different ideas about what makes a good hook. (And ideas about what is hooky and what is not do vary widely around DYK.) BlueMoonset (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset:. Thanks for your help with cleaning up the article.Djflem (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, saw myself pinged. I still find ALT0 rather boring and in line with all our "biggest", "longest", "oldest" hooks—a superfluousness that probably made them want to write the article in the first place, but doesn't make arresting hooks. ALT2, on the other hand, is terrific. I would tweak it this way to get rid of the awkward phrasing:
  • ALT2a: ... that a proposed 1100-megawatt wind farm in New Jersey will connect to the regional transmission grid via a closed 619-megawatt nuclear power plant?
  • ALT2a hook refs verified and cited inline. Rest of review per Onceinawhile. ALT2a good to go. Yoninah (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
.If you'r going to review, please read the discussion above and the problems with the ALT you are approving, which is factually incorrect and crystal ball. (Find it highly irregular to make and approve one's own proposal in one go. Is that normal practice at DYK?) As all other issues have been resolved, there is no reason to hold up this nom & original hook any further.Djflem (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are you referring to? I didn't write the ALT2 hook. I just changed is to connect to will connect and planned to proposed. All these I saw in the source. It does not seem crystal ball to me because of the word "proposed". It is just talking about the proposal. Your ALT0 also uses the word proposed, but I dislike superlative hooks. I have given my approval tick to ALT2a. If someone else wants to approve (and promote) your original hook, be my guest. Yoninah (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As was earlier corrected, the proposed offshore windfarm is not in NJ, is it? How do you know that it "will" connect to the nuclear power plant? Djflem (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • This has been sitting for three weeks, so I'd like to try to move it along. The problem I always had with the original hook, Djflem, is that "largest" when the only active offshore wind farm is 30 megawatts is not that impressive; there's no sense of scale or how large the largest can be. I also wonder whether it's still true; this source talks about a 2,600 MW project that is "set for completion in 2026", so surely proposed and larger than Ocean Wind. Either way, I don't think it will serve, so I've struck it. Here are three alternatives that follow in the vein of the ALT2 variants in getting the size and making clear it's large by the comparison to that nuclear power plant, but (I believe) have all the facts correct; they get shorter by varying the wording of the connection (from "has secured the rights to" down to "can"); you're welcome to propose another hook if you're not fond of these:
Speaking as an outsider, I wonder if a hook that makes the wind farm-nuclear plant connection clearer and more obvious could be proposed. The numbers don't really seem to elicit hookiness from me and I'd presume that general readers may feel the same way; however, a wind farm and nuclear plant working together actually does sound more interesting. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Such as a simplified (or similiar)?
Drive by comment: this ALT sounds hooky and well-sourced to me and I have moved the Oyster re-use ref in the article to the lead to support this hook. Crum375 (talk) 14:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5, BlueMoonset, and Yoninah: Any reason why I shouldn't tick this off with ALT4? Crum375 (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Crum375: if you think it meets all the criteria, please go ahead! Yoninah (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck out other ALTs, for ALT4: Reviewed DYK criteria incl. newness, QPQ, refs and hook sourcing, copyvio and hook length. GTG. Crum375 (talk)

Coordinate error[edit]

{{geodata-check}} https://whyy.org/articles/skyscrapers-in-the-sea-massive-wind-turbines-planned-off-delaware-coast/ shows map of WEA (Wind Energy Area), not a one particular point within it. I believe the best coordinate would be the point closet to the shore as described (ie, miles or nautical miles offshore).Djflem (talk) 10:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the coordinates to correspond to a point near the middle of the area indicated on that map (and reduced their precision per WP:OPCOORD). Deor (talk) 12:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Communicating Science[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2023 and 8 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Treelover50 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Maeflowerbailey16 (talk) 14:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ocean_Wind&oldid=1213779789"