Talk:Solar power/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Starting GA review Jezhotwells (talk) 17:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick fail criteria assessment

  1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
    • Appears to be well sourced
  2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
    • treated in a non-neutral way
  3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
    • No cleanup tags
  4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
    • No edit warring, some vandalism has been reverted
  5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
    • not applicable

No quick fail problems, proceeding to review. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):
    • I shall leave the lead until last. See the MOS section Jezhotwells (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overview: This section is rather short for an overview. Consider expansion and explanation for non-technical readers. What are the "various experimental technologies"? "One problem with solar power is that developing countries may not have the funds to build the power plants"; are there other problems? Examples? Consider rewording to a more encyclopaedic style. Likewise with "One fundamental difference between renewable energy and non-renewable energy is that non-renewable resources can be purchased as they are consumed, whereas with renewable resources, you pay up front for the next twenty years or so of energy.". Jezhotwells (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC) See the MOS section Jezhotwells (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reworded and added references. The last statement is a no-brainer complaint of installing solar panels, that you pay up front for the next 20 to 30 years of virtually maintenance free operation. The find solar link[1] has recently been updated to show a handy list of costs over the years showing break even, including throwing in replacing the inverter every so often. Here is an example for 20500 for the zip code, and $100/month electric bill, generating 100% of your electricity.[2] At $9/watt it costs you an estimated "between $55,368 and $83,052" for installation. Using the mid point, you break even in year 21 (but only if you get a 30% tax credit - Washington DC, zip code 20500, is not one of the most cost effective locations for solar - in New Haven, CT 06510, you break even in only 12 years, and in Honolulu, HI 96815 in just 8 years, each with the same 814 kWh/month sized system). One of the more recent references I was looking at says that much of the U.S. is about to hit "grid parity", meaning without subsidies you break even during the 20 year warranty period. Some of the references are admittedly old (see item 2 b below). Apteva (talk) 04:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Concentrating solar power: I removed the initials as they should not be in the section header. A lot of the statements need citing. I am placing fact tags as I go. I have discovered that this section quotes extensively from {http://www.newfuelnow.com/definitions/whatissolarpower/} Please remove this material immediately. Review suspended. I will report this copyright violation if it is not addressed in 48 hours. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excuse me? That is a blatantly unattributed copy of Wikipedia content, it even includes the [citation needed] that I just removed.[3] You might want to compare this version[4] with the alleged copyvio.[5] Apteva (talk) 03:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, after further checking I realise that in fact this article has been extensively quoted (without attribution in many cases) on numerous websites. Please accept my apologies for my error in mistakenly thinking this was plagiarism in Wikipedia. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Experimental solar power should surely be in the photovotaics section. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    b (MoS):
    • I believe you should consider combining and rewriting the Lead and Overview sections. A lead section is basically an overview or executive summary of an article, thus the overview is redundant. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Ok, the rewording sorts this out. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    • Reference #6 actually says takes 10 to 15 years to produce enough electricity to pay for itself rather than the 20 years stated. Reference #9 does not support the statement Suntrof-Mulk parabolic troughs achieve over 25% efficiency. reference #26 - I cant find a direct support for These off-grid applications have proven very successful and accounted for over half of worldwide installed capacity until 2004. Page numbers should be used for documents longer than 10 pages or so. Reference #36 does not support The power output of domestic photovoltaic devices is usually described in kilowatt-peak (kWp) units, as most are from 1 to 10 kW. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed unsupported claim of 25% efficiency. Rm claim of being "very successful". Added page number. I am not certain if it should have been 2004 or 2005. Perhaps someone with better vision can check. All you have to look for is the point that on-grid crosses the off-grid curve, as the crossing point is the 50% point for each. Apteva (talk) 15:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, I see that ref #26 is now #27. that checks out on page 11. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just looking at the ones in #36 that call themselves "residence", here is a histogram of kWp. I would call that pretty definitive that most home systems are from 1 to 10 kW. In addition to these there were three larger ones, one 32 kW, one 35 kW, and one 38 kW. The question is whether they are described in MW, kW, or as one editor wanted, GW. As you can see most are 1 to 10 kW, so describing them in MW or GW would not make any sense. I did find one that was described in Watts, though. Apteva (talk) 18:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, ref #36 is now #37. I have added an explanation into the citation to clarify the unit use. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where si this from. I can't find it in any of the 37 pages of ref #36 Jezhotwells (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Click on any of the links, for example the third residence one, Cruse Residence shows that it is a 6.6 kW solar panel installed on November 9, 2007, and it has generated 13,161 kWh over the last year, or 13161/6.6/8760 = 22.8% capacity factor. Some of them show use and generation, like the Cates-Bristol Residence, or the Resch Residence. Apteva (talk) 03:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Ok, fixed as noted. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    • All are ok, see link to verify that those are the ones you had trouble opening. Apteva (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref #16 [7] is dead. Ref #51 [8] is dead. Ref #49 [9] is dead. I removed [10] from the El as it is dead. I amended [11] to link to the calculator rather than the aggregating site. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    http://www.find-solar.org/ opens ok but I won't restore it for now. It is much more detailed than the other one. I think that Stanford sends a student off to load the CD every time someone clicks on #16. You can more reliably access it through Google,[12] and it does eventually open from stanford.edu. Fixed error in URL. I kept looking at it and thinking it was the same but it was different (no www). Ditto For EPIA(#51) they moved the URL. Not sure if it is better to use http://www.epia.org/index.php?id=18 or this.[13] #49 they seem to have moved the article but not the graphic.[14] Apteva (talk) 04:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC) All OK now. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its scope.
    a (major aspects):
    • broad
    b (focused):
    • focussed
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    • NPOV
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
    • stable
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    • I have discovered copyright violations, please address this immediately. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What you have found is an unattributed exact copy of Wikipedia. See above. For what it is worth, this article was created by chopping out half of solar energy to split it into two articles. Since that article has been reviewed seven ways to Sunday I figured this one should be GA with little changes. About all that was needed was a new lead section and a new overview. Apteva (talk) 03:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • All Ok, now. Well done for your hard work. I am satisfied that this article deserves GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Solar_power/GA1&oldid=291690200"