Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Renewable energy in Iceland/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 22:39, 13 June 2007.

Renewable energy in Iceland edit

Reasons for nomination:

  • Comprehensive and in-depth, despite the article’s relative youth;
  • Well-referenced from reliable sources, e.g. official Iceland statistics and the United Nations;
  • Appropriately illustrated;
  • Well-written, easy-to-follow prose (only minor changes need to be made);
  • An important topic for the country, which will only become more pertinent in the coming years.

Max Naylor 10:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per criteria 1a; prose is weakly-worded in places. For example:
    • "The use of renewable energy is very important to Iceland’s government because they have transformed Iceland from an environment highly polluted by coal to a country which ranked 53 in the world 2003 per capita CO2 emissions,..." - I am not sure what this part sentence means exactly. Does it really mean that the government changed Iceland's environment, therefore it (not they!) places a priority on renewable energy usage? That doesn't seem logical. It would seem that they made r/e usage a priority before they managed to transform the environment.
    • "There are over 20 high-temperature steam fields, meaning they reach a temperature of at least 150°C; many of them reaching temperatures of 250°C[4]." - This is an awkward sentence that needs re-wording.
    • "This plant single handedly quadrupled the amount of electricity in the country.[7]" - Missing hyphen.
    • "Currently, Iceland is going through its biggest hydroelectric project to date. They are creating a 690 MW hydroelectric plant and another aluminum smelter.[9] This is the Kárahnjúkar Hydropower Project and it is very controversial among environmentalists." - Badly worded. What does "going through" mean? Is it under construction, or still in planning stage? Who are "they"? (The second sentence would be better in passive voice.) The third sentence is related to the first sentence and I would link them like this: "...biggest hydroelectric project to date—the Kárahnjúkar Hydropower Project...".
    • "Iceland’s government believes that they could produce 30 TWh..." - Another problem with "they". Does it refer to the government, or the country? Be specific.
    • "The move from oil-based heating to geothermal heating saved Iceland an estimated total of $8,200,000,000..." - Firstly, please specify the currency for this amount per WP:$. Secondly, change the number to "8.2 billion" to make it more readable.
    Given the amount of non-fluent prose, it would take a bit more work for this to be FA star-worthy. Resurgent insurgent 16:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done: The article has been updated to reflect these changes. Max Naylor 18:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Universe=atom

Again, the structure, wordiness, and grammar of sentences in this article can be improved, including but not limited to the following sentences from the article:

  • 99.9% of Iceland's electricity is currently generated from renewable sources, 81% from hydroelectric power, and virtually all the remainder from geothermal power. (first sentence of second paragraph of article) This sentence contains two mistakes. First of all, the master rule is that sentences should never begin with numerals, even though this may cause inconsistency in applying other numerical rules. Second of all, perhaps something is wrong with the phrase ...and virtually all the remainder from geothermal power. According to me, it suggests some POV. Perhaps it could be changed to ...and most of the remainder from..."
  • The use of renewable energy is pivotal in Iceland: the country has been transformed from a country highly polluted by coal, to a nation which ranked 53rd in the list of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita (2003), emitting 62% less less than the United States per capita despite using more primary energy per capita. (first sentence of third paragraph of article) Again, several mistakes. First of all, this the only sentence in its paragraph; in other words, it is a one-sentence paragraph. Second of all, why is there a colon after Iceland. Should not there be a semicolon instead. After all, what comes after it is a separate clause. Third of all, 53rd should be written, as that is the rule (words like first, second, etc. should be written out).
  • There are over 20 high-temperature steam fields, that are at least 150°C; many of them reach temperatures of 250°C (third sentence of "Geology" section) Why is there a comma after fields? After all, what comes after that is just an adjective clause.
  • In 1969 they built a 210 MW plant on the Þjórsá River that would supply the southeastern area of Iceland with electricity and run an aluminum smelting plant that could produce 33,000 tons of aluminum a year. (last sentence of first paragraph of "Hydropower" section) Should not a comma be present after In 1969 because it is an adverb phrase present at the beginning of the sentence?
  • Of this, 7,143 GWh and 5,193 GWh,72% was used for power intensive industries like aluminum smelting. (third sentence of second paragraph of "Hydropower" section) Two mistakes. First of all, there is a comma present of Of this. (That is not a mistake, by the way.) So, the comma after the 7 in 7,143 should be erased as to avoid confusion. If this is done, the comma after 5 in 5,193 should also be erased as to apply coherency. Second of all, there is a spacing mistake; there is no space between GWh, and 72%.

Having found this many mistakes in the introduction and the first section and several others throughout the article, I am confident that it will be understood why my vote is OPPOSE. Universe=atom•Talk•Contributions• 19:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see how the comma in 7,143 is a source of confusion, it is clearly acting as a separator here (as per WP:$#Numbers). Some of these ‘errors’ are a little pretentious, but I am one to complain over the incorrect use of a comma, so I suppose it does matter; I don’t want to come across as hypocritical. Max Naylor 20:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The comma after of this is unnecessary. Max Naylor 20:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve corrected the mistakes you pointed out, I have a query regarding this sentence:
The equivalent amount of oil that would have been needed in 2003 to heat Iceland’s homes was 646,000 tons of oil.
Is the second tons of oil superfluous? Max Naylor 20:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Resurgent insurgent 22:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—1a. The writing is not at all good enough. Here are random examples of why the whole article needs urgent attention.
    • "These two plants were the first built for industrial purposes and they were co-owned by the Icelandic government." Remove the second "they".
    • Serious shortage of commas throughout. For example: "This trend continued and increases in the production of hydroelectric power are directly related to industrial development." Comma before "and"; should it be "have been"? "The first use of geothermal energy for heating did not come until 1907 when a farmer ran a concrete pipe from a hot spring that led steam into his house." Comma before "when".
    • "In 1969, they built a 210 MW plant on the Þjórsá River that would supply the southeastern area of Iceland with electricity". Just "supplied"; this disease is called "woulditis".
    • "Iceland’s government believes another 30 TWh of hydropower every year could be produced, whilst taking into account the sources that must remain untapped for environmental reasons." Replace the outmoded "whilst" with "even" to clarify the sense.
    • "Iceland is the first country in the world to create an economy generated through industries fueled by renewable energy, and there is still a large amount of untapped hydroelectric energy in Iceland. In 2002 it was estimated that Iceland only generated 17% of the total harnessable hydroelectric energy in Iceland. Iceland’s government believes another 30 TWh of hydropower every year ..." Too many Icelands here. "Largely generated", please, unless no oil at all is imported. Put "only" after "estimated". "a year", as before, not "every year". Very poor.
    • "Outside of"—spot the redundant word. Tony 02:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: This article places far too much emphasis, right from the opening paragraph, on hydrogen. If you look at the article cited as footnote 3, it is from a company that hopes to push hydrogen as an energy carrier for transportation, but even this company acknowledges that hydrogen for vehicles, produced from renewable energy, is not going to happen until (at least) 2050. See hydrogen car. Apparently, this article is buying into The Hype about Hydrogen. Hydrogen for cars is pie-in-the-sky technology, and many scientists believe that it will never be a viable technology. It is likely that other non-polluting technologies, probably electric cars, will be commercially viable much sooner than hydrogen. I strongly suggest giving a more realistic and balanced treatment of hydrogen as part of the treatment of renewable energy. Stationary hydrogen fuel cells yes, certainly. But for cars, no. -- Ssilvers 01:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Renewable_energy_in_Iceland/archive1&oldid=987176565"