Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Nuclear power by country/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nuclear power by country[edit]

This list is very new, but it has complete referencing. All the information is organised logically in a table. All images are captioned with an appropriate caption and have correct licensing information. It also has an appropriate lead and generally fulfills all the List Criteria. Self-nom smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 07:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Spain recently decommisioned one nuclear plant, why is it considered stable? Apart from that, the list seems good, but I'll take a better look. Afonso Silva 08:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Spain is considered stable because it plans to upgrade its other reactors to compensate. I'll make a note on the page. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 09:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • The list fails to mention how they are listed by. (It appears to be in order by number of reactors first and name second, but this needs to be stated.)
  • Since the list is by nuclear power shouldn't it be listed by the energy generated? A country that uses its plants more seems more "nuclear powerful" to me than a country that has more plants but doesn't use.
  • In either case, the secondary form of listing should not be by the countries' name. It should be by the number of reactors (if you decide to change like I suggested) or by the energy produced (if you keep the first form of listing as it is).
  • The countries with 0 should be ranked according to how far along they are in the process and by how much they plan to build. (e.g. planning 2 reactors should be above planning 1 reactor; construcing reactors should be above proposing reactors)
  • Is the energy produced a complete total? Or is it by year?
SeizureDog 09:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Energy production is measured in watts, which is per second. I've rearranged the list by reactors, then by advancement of expansion programs, and then by peak power output, as peak power output is more variable than the number of reactors present. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 10:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be more intuitive if the list was arranged by number of reactors first (as it is right now) and then by peak power output. Sorting criteria have to be mentioned before the table anyway. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds more logical; I'll change it to that. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 14:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - as I said on the talk page. Renata 11:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think that this is a particularly stable list. It would be changing pretty constantly, as those countries which don't have any nuclear power plants slip in and out of debate all the time (Australia is currently in debate, which started a couple weeks ago). I don't think it would be kept terribly up to date. Also, what constitutes "Considering new plants"? --liquidGhoul 13:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Countries are only listed if they have actually sent proposals/plans to the IAEA. As the UK hasn't actually sent any plans yet, I've changed the status to stable. As Australia hasn't sent any proposals to the IAEA, they are still listed as reactorless. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 14:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The stability criterium refers mostly to content disputes (e.g. whether person X belongs to nationality Y, etc.) not to content that has to be updated. Not updating a list that requires so, however, is grounds for defeaturing over at Featured list removal candidates. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 16:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the IAEA updates are once a year, so it shouldn't be too hard to maintain. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 21:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very nice, very useful. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 16:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't know much about this subject, but like List of countries with nuclear weapons, I prefer we have detailed paragraphs about each country. Anyway, could you add flags next to each country? CG 16:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We already have articles about nuclear power in most big countries (the notable exceptions being S. Korea and China (and Ukraine and Germany)), so I've linked to them, and all countries are flagged. In a lot of countries though, the history of nuclear is pretty uneventful; there's not much that could be written about nuclear power in Mexico or nuclear power in Slovenia, for example. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 18:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • support though a few points: on my monitor (which may have colour problems) the caption gives wrong colours for building and considering new reactors, and the building new and decomishioned all appear the same. Like I said could just be my monitor though. Also I could the map be changed to show which countries have reactors currently and which don't. Not neccessary, but I see minor difficulties having Iran and the US he same colour and think a difference would help the list. Perhaps light and dark colours or something. say1988 02:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds a monitor issue to me; building is green while decommissioned is red. I made the colour change you suggested. Thanks! smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 06:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think the columns that indicate the number of reactors and the power output should be reduced. That would look better and would also avoid double lining when the last column has a longer text. I'd also like to see the World Nuclear Association link becoming blue. Apart from that the article is good and I'l glady support it if my proposals are met or discussed. Afonso Silva 22:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed your points. I couldn't find a lot of information about the World Nuclear Association, as the "about us" section on their website is mostly one big ad for them, but they now have a reasonable stub. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 22:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Now it looks really good. It meets the criteria. Nice work! Afonso Silva 00:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Does this list follow naming conventions? I would have guessed that it should have been called List of nuclear power by country.
I'm not sure; I don't think there's any convention that states that all lists must start with "List of"...; Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, United Nations member states and Flag flying days in Mexico were all featured with names similar to this one. If I'm wrong however, I think the title should be along the lines of List of countries by nuclear power, which seems more cumbersome. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 15:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, there are no naming conventions whatsoever apart from the fact that the title must reflect the content of the article. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 08:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Am I the only one who has read Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Lists. --Maitch 09:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would like to see the percent of national power from nuclear added. It is available in the first reference. Rmhermen 00:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping to have it, but since I can't find any stats for total electricity production of the European Union, in order to add this statistic, I'd have to remove the EU from the list entirely. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 07:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. The list looks very well done, and I can't really find a reason to object to it. --Wizardman 02:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, great work. —Nightstallion (?) 12:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Nuclear_power_by_country/archive1&oldid=1145622002"