Talk:Gateway Generating Station/GA1
Latest comment: 3 years ago by The Most Comfortable Chair in topic GA Review
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: The Most Comfortable Chair (talk · contribs) 04:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello. I will review this soon. Best. — The Most Comfortable Chair 04:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
General edit
- Either use "Mirant" or "Mirant Delta" throughout.
Lead edit
- Please move references from the lead to the prose.
- "combined-cycle", "half a million customers in northern and central California", "southern shore of the San Joaquin River, on 3225 Wilbur Avenue in Antioch", "While it was constructed as a nominally 530MW facility, an additional 50MW of low-cost peaking capability brings its overall capacity to 580MW." — All these should be mentioned and explained in the prose more elaborately than it is in the lead.
- "PG&E says that "compared to older fossil-fuel plants", Gateway Generating Station produces "dramatically less carbon dioxide for every megawatt-hour produced", and that its "dry" cooling technology causes it to use 97% less water." — This sounds self-promotional and should instead be written without quotes and in your own words, and more neutrally. Also, this part isn't covered in the prose either and it should be with elaborations. For the rephrasing part, you can write something like → "According to PG&E, Gateway Generating Station produces relatively "less carbon dioxide for every megawatt-hour" compared to older structures, and uses 97% less water because of its usage of dry cooling technology." — This reduces primary source quotations and makes it not sound promotional.
Done: with regard to the PG&E claims, I think they are a little questionable. As far as I can tell, when they talk about "using" water, what they refer to is drawing water out of the river and then putting it back in. That particular sentence is more or less useless: it's mostly there because, when I initially wrote it to DYK level, the article was pretty sparse on the facility and its operation, so there needed to be something about its design principles. Now that there is a huge section on the layout and function on the facility, it isn't really needed, so I will just take it out. jp×g 20:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- The lead needs to mention when the work on the project started, and a brief summary of the "Facility" and "Operations" section (including a note on the lawsuit).
Construction edit
- "The proposal to construct the project was filed with the California Energy Commission by Mirant Delta (now GenOn Energy Holdings) in January 2000, and certified in May 2001, at which point construction began." — The sentence will flow better if it is split into two.
- Put "PG&E" in brackets after the full name is first mentioned.
- "in 2006 it was approved as a co-owner of Unit 8" — What is "Unit 8"? Please explain it in the prose at the beginning before it is mentioned here (even if it is explained in the lead already).
- "plant represents the "Gateway" to the future of electric power generation" → ""plant represents the 'Gateway' to the future of electric power generation"
- "Construction finally began in February 2007" — It is mentioned that it had already began in 2001. Does it mean that it was resumed or that an entirely new building was being constructed at this point? Please clarify that.
- "It was the first new plant built by PG&E in nearly twenty years." — This hangs like an odd fact at the end of the paragraph. It would probably work better in the beginning part of this paragraph.
- "The work for underground piping and power..." — This paragraph should be merged with the previous one in the middle for better flow and continuity. Probably as the next lines after "...electricity to customers by 2009."
- "In July 2008, construction was "two-thirds" finished; The gas turbines were first fired in November 2008; commercial operation, supplying power to nearly 400,000 customers, began on January 4, 2009." — Should have one less semicolon here. Also, use something more formal than "were first fired", like "first became operational".
- Mostly done; I'm concerned that "first became operational" might not be correct in this instance. As far as I can tell, just firing the turbines isn't the same thing as them being fully "operational" (in the sense of functioning as generating turbines), and this mostly means that they had them installed enough to do basic testing. However, I can look further into this if you'd like. jp×g 20:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Facility edit
- Disambiguation link — "substation".
- "from the nearby river." — Can we name (and link) the river?
- "Heat recovery" — A link or a brief note explaining this will help.
- "Its nominal rating is 240 MW; as installed, its nominal rating is 190 MW." — This is a little too technical and will need to be clarified or simplified.
- Since short island paragraphs are generally discouraged, I have merged a few of them.
- "NOx" — Should write it as it is written in the next section.
Operation edit
- Link — "natural gas", "Center for Biological Diversity", and "Communities for a Better Environment".
- "The goal of the lawsuit was to cause the EPA to reject PG&E's air emissions permit for the plant." — Could be phrased better. Something like "The lawsuit intended to cause the EPA to revoke/not renew..." or something like that?
- "This mission was not to succeed, however" — It does not add any new content and is not very helpful. Please remove it.
- "U.S. District Judge" — District Judge for?
- "in October," → "in October YYYY,"
Safety edit
- I have re-arranged the first paragraph to follow a proper chronology of events.
- "By January 2015, the station had operated for over 3,000 days without an injury" and "the only recorded injury that had ever occurred was in April 2009" are contradictory to each other.
- "followed on schedule and kept current" — Please rephrase "kept current" as it is a bit confusing.
- "Some revisions of standard operating procedures were inaccessible, but this issue was addressed during the audit." — Inaccessible to whom, for how long, and why?
- Done. The only information I have is the report from the auditors, which say that some current revisions of SOPs were inaccessible in the document management system due to a system error of some kind. I don't know if the auditors know how long this had been the case (they might not have known either, and at any rate, they didn't say). jp×g 22:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
References edit
- Be consistent with "Pacific Gas & Electric" or "Pacific Gas and Electric"
- Please use the same date format with all references.
- Reference 5 — "Huston Chronicle" should be in italics. I am not sure why "Reynolds Journalism Institute, Missouri School of Journalism" are included here.
- Reference 7 — "California Energy Commission" should not be in italics.
- Reference 8 — I am unable to access this url (as well as the archived one).
- Reference 9 — "Brentwood Press" should be in italics.
- Reference 11 — "Black and Veatch Construction" should not be in italics.
- Reference 12 — Use the full name for "EMCOR".
The EMCOR in EMCOR Group doesn't stand for anything, according to their website. I could spell it as "Emcor Group" if you want. jp×g 22:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- Reference 13 — "San Francisco Business Times" will be in italics.
- Reference 15 — "W. E. Lyons Construction" will not be in italics.
- Reference 16 — "Turbine Inlet Cooling Association" will not be in italics.
- Reference 17 — Either unlink "General Electric" or link items that have Wikipedia targets when first mentioned with all references. For instance, "The New York Times" in Reference 2.
- Reference 20 — Remove "Babcock Power" as authors and remove italics from "Babcock Power".
- Reference 25 — Italics for "Courthouse News Service".
That will be all for now. Thank you. — The Most Comfortable Chair 11:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, I think it'll be easiest to go through these point-by-point. I'll start making my way through. jp×g 17:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- All right, I've made all modifications mentioned here (as well as expanding on a few unrelated things). @The Most Comfortable Chair: thoughts? jp×g 22:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Final edit
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- The article is an informative and well-written; it looks great and meets the criteria. Thank you for your hard work! — The Most Comfortable Chair 03:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
