Talk:Scout Moor Wind Farm/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Sources

We have a little bit of info to work with from Google Books. --Jza84 | Talk 13:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

According to page 260 of Chetham Society (1856), Remains, Historical and Literary, Connected with the Palatine Counties of Lancaster and Chester, Chetham Society:

In the hamlet of Shuttleworth there is a large tract of upland, called still Scout Moor, its loftier eminences taking the names of Whittle [White Hull] Hill, Fecit Hill and Higher Hill. These would be the hills on Scout, or the Scout hills, and the worth or hamlet would be Sceot-hulls-worth, or the dwelling- place by the Scout hills. Scouts are long ridges of rock, so called from the Anglo-Saxon Sceotan, as being shot out, horizontally or nearly so, to a great length. Whether this description applies to the Scout above the hamlet of Shuttleworth, to Kinder Scout in the Peak district of Derbyshire (1800 feet high), and to other ridges bearing the name of Scout, will be best vouched by their neighbours. The conversion of Sceot- or Scout- hull into Shuttle is natural and easy; for the Saxon sc generally becomes sh in later English, as sceotan, to shoot ; sceotung, shooting ; and in the past, scoten, shot. Sceat, too, in the sense of tax or reckoning, was subsequently called both scot and shot. An old name for an arrow or dart was gescot.

From this I think we can deduce that "Shuttleworth is believed to take its name from Scout Moor" and that "the name Scout for the moor is believed to be derived from sceotan, an Old English word for "shot". Scout hills are "long ridges of rock, so called [for] being shot out, horizontally [...] to a great length"."

Is this worthy of an addition to the article? If so, where so? --Jza84 | Talk 12:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Could it go under a a section called Toponymy of Scout Moor? Richerman (talk) 12:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, Shuttleworth is in Greater Manchester - only just though ([1])!.... Single paragraph-sections are generally discouraged. I'd be inclined to put it at the start of the History section. I'm hoping we can add a bit about the coal mining which took place there too (after toponymy) during the 19th century (source pending). What do you think? --Jza84 | Talk 12:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It is, We bought a stone built terraced house in Shuttleworth when we first got married and I used to go to work on the Ribble bus using a GM Bus pass. Mind you, in those days the locals thought that you fell off the edge of the world if you went past Bury:) But to be serious - yes, the suggestion about the history section sounds good. Richerman (talk) 13:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking at Geograph.org.uk, I think that the locals may have been right! :)! --Jza84 | Talk 15:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Key facts

The key facts all come from one source. Do they need a seperate reference for each fact? Richerman (talk) 11:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I've got around that by adjusting the table. :) --Jza84 | Talk 12:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a good compromise - do you think it's ready for GA review now? Richerman (talk) 12:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we're ready for it. I'm impressed! --Jza84 | Talk 15:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Nominated with this sig. --Jza84 | Talk 16:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Scout Moor Wind Farm/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
The lead is a bit short; I would recommend at least something on the construction be added, at least the brand of turbines, the cost and annual production (MWh). Actually, non-British readers may not know what an MP is—so you gotta write it out in full the first time. Any reason the max effect isn't mentioned in the key facts?
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
If a paragraph only has one reference, it is sufficient to have a single ref at the end of it.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Placed on hold. Interesting and well written article. A little short lead, and please add the per-turbine effect to the table. When resolved the article should pass. If you have any questions or comments, don't hesitate to ask. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The key facts mostly come from one source, there are other sources but they all have the same facts copied from each other - What do you mean by the "max effect"? Richerman (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Windmills normally have a max effect (typically 3 or 3.5 MW), and is the typical main benchmark for measuring the size of windmills. The effect will be proportionate with the wind speed up to some limit (such as 14 m/s) and will continue producing at this max effect until turn-off point (such as 25 m/s). I presume taking 65 MW / 26 turbines would give the max effect per turbine. Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Based on this, I think it may be 2.5 MW. --Jza84 | Talk 23:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I think all the problems have been fixed now - how does it look? Richerman (talk) 01:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Passed. I have tweaked some of the values trying to create consistency with the MoS and internally in the article. Try to stick to either metric or imperial units as the primary value throughout the article. For further improvements beyond the GA criteria, feel free to expand the article if more information is found, and also the lead is rather small; additional information can be added if wanted. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

"Max effect" sounds like a synonym for nameplate capacity. As we have a link for nameplate capacity, I suggest standardizing the terminology on it, and linking at least the first instance in an article. --Teratornis (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Total _X_ displaced per annum

The figures on "Total X displaced per annum" are assuming some displacement of fossil fuel, but which? Presumably coal, but it needs explaining.
—WWoods (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it means the ammount of CO₂ saved per year by using the wind farm instead of fossil fuels, therefore there is no need to say which fossil fuels. Nev1 (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The figures are taken from the reference given which doesn't give an explanation, but where does the figure for the capacity factor come from? It's not in the reference that's used for the rest of the key facts. Richerman (talk) 10:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

True, it's not explained but since it came under "enviromental beneits" I think that's what it means. I have no idea what a "capacity factor" is, let a lone where the reference is. It was added by User:Wwoods so he's the person to ask. Nev1 (talk) 13:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I presume he means the the capacity of the whole wind farm, as 65MW is what it generates (?). --Jza84 | Talk 13:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

So you think he means the proportion of 65MW generated by each turbine? I don't think so, if they all contribute an equal amount the factor be ¹/₂₆ (0.04). I'll ask him. Nev1 (talk) 13:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Well there is a definition at capacity factor but from what I've gleaned from that it should be something like 20 - 40% so what the figure of 0.27 means is a mystery. Richerman (talk) 14:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, 0.27 is 27%; if you want to make the number a percentage rather than a fraction, go ahead. I got the figure by converting the given "Electricity generated per annum" from 154,000 MW-h/yr to 17.6 MW-yr/yr (24×365.25 hr/yr), and dividing by the maximum possible 65 MW-yr/yr. The result is dimensionless. I guess a link to Capacity factor is in order.

—WWoods (talk)

The amount of CO2 saved per year depends on which fossil fuel is displaced by wind power. On second thought, it's probably natural gas, not coal, that would have been burned. It makes a difference.

—WWoods (talk) 16:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

See Carbon footprint#Carbon footprint by energy type, but also note that the U.K.'s North Sea gas fields are now in terminal decline, so the fossil fuel fuel mix may have to shift back to the more abundant but relatively dirtier coal over time. Incidentally, the confusion over terms such as capacity factor and nameplate capacity should vanish with a careful reading of the Wind power article. To provide more technical background in the Scout Moor Wind Farm article, I added the {{Wind power}} navigation template. --Teratornis (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Re-assessed as A class?

Congratulations to those involved in bringing this article to GA. Well done! But now I see it has been re-assessed as A-class, and I'm wondering if due process has been followed. Has the re-assessment been done by impartial reviewers, per Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/A-Class criteria? Johnfos (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the A-class isn't a formally assessed tier of appraisal. It's achieved GA, and is approaching FA, so surely this isn't contentious? :S --Jza84 | Talk 23:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

As explained at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/A-Class criteria, the proposal to promote to A-Class should be made on the article's talk page and supported there by two uninvolved editors, with no significant opposes. I know that with WP:Energy if we don't follow this procedure things will simply get out of hand, with individuals promoting energy articles from GA to A just on a whim. Johnfos (talk) 01:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like an awful lot of Wikilawyering and redtape to me. What happened to WP:BOLD and WP:IAR? I frequently reassess articles, including those I've been involved with. WP:GM has monthly updates on progress and doesn't have the numbers of editors to make this happen via 2 uninvolved editors - if we waited for that our assessment would rapidly descend into redundancy.

I'm about to run this page through FAC, so it seems appropriate to be an A-class. If you want to oppose it, then sure, I'll wait on the nomination before we get 2 uninvolved editors to support this with no significant opposes.... What happens if nobody comes along? We wait? I'm not going to get hung up on the assessment when vandalism to the page went un-noticed.... --Jza84 | Talk 12:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I've long considered the A class rating to be pretty pointless and arbitrary anyway. So I don't see it makes much difference whether this article's an A or a GA, especially as it's going to FAC soon anyway. The Version 1.0 Editorial Team may assess articles in any way it likes, but I don't see why that ought to matter to anyone else. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

On the whole, I agree with Malleus, I don't personally use A-class and feel they're pretty much unnecessary. I was under the impression it was awarded by a project by project basis anyway. I've only really see it be productive in WP:MILHIST where they have A-class reviews as a step before FAC and an alternative to peer review, however they are a massive project with 100s of members. Nev1 (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the key here is to go for FAC? --Jza84 | Talk 16:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I think so, passing would certainly end this discussion ;-) Nev1 (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Johnfos and I also agree with Malleus. Passing FAC will definitely end this discussion. For A rating, I think that deep review is needed and as was said by Johnfos, at least two uninvolved editors should support this.Beagel (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Would we all be willing to pull together to make this FAC happen? :) --Jza84 | Talk 21:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm in, I think we should persuade Richerman to nominate. Nev1 (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure.Beagel (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

If someone wants to nominate it that's fine by me - I'll gladly pitch in to help with any changes needed. Richerman (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

To get the ball rolling I'll nominate this article now, but I won't take any credit for it as I've contributed as near as damnit nothing to it. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, it's at FAC now. Brace yourselves everyone. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 23:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm fully braced! Richerman (talk) 11:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

NUAE?

What does "NUAE" stand for? I can't find it at [2]. It's being used in ref 18. An FA reviewer has asked that it be spelled out. --Jza84 | Talk 11:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see why he thinks it's important. It's the name of a German company "NAUE Geosynthetics Ltd". Their UK webite is at http://www.naue.com/content-e/ but they don't say what the letters stand for. As it will be in Geram it wouldn't mean much to a non-German speaker anyway. I'll change the title of the referenceRicherman (talk) 13:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"2 miles of open moorland"

...from the opening paragraph. Shouldn't this be an area measurement? Is this 2 miles along the longest axis of the area, or what? El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 11:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but a source uses units of length. If we could find the area used by the wind farm, then yes, I think that's a go-er. --Jza84 | Talk 12:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Found one - this document says (at the bottom of page 3) that the site occupies approximately 545 hectares (1347 acres). El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 13:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)