Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of power stations in Sri Lanka/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC) [1].[reply]
List of power stations in Sri Lanka edit
List of power stations in Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
The page shows the most comprehensive list of power stations in Sri Lanka, something that is [oddly] not found on a single source anywhere on the internet or offline. The list is rich with content, referencing, pictures, and a map. I believe this should pass FL. Rehman 01:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Dudley
- "while the renewable energy sector consists of mostly of privately-run plants" Repetition of "of"
- "2,115MW (53.8%) was from thermal" In my view, the fuel used - gas or coal etc - is more significant than the technology.
- Fossil fuel section - no figures for the percentage and MW for different fuels and no columns in the table for this.
-
- Coal is 900+500=1,1400MW, which is 35.6% of the total of 3932MW. Oil is 2115-1400=715MW, which is 18.2%. Gas currently zero, although you say there are plans to introduce it. I think these figures should be stated. Personally, I would have separate tables for coal and oil, but this is of course up to you. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added the figures to the lead section. The tables were separate when this list was created a long time ago. It was changed for two reasons, one because there will only be two entries in the coal table, and two because the local energy industry always collectively identifies all fossil-fuel plants as thermal power stations. You cannot find separated list anywhere on local publications. Hence the table was merged to reflect a more locally recognizable style. Rehman 09:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly disagree with merging oil and coal. The fact that local sources make it more difficult to find the information which is most important for international readers is no reason for Wikipedia to do so. You have a separate table for solar, which has two power stations and insignificant capacity, and not for coal which is over a third of capacity. I would also suggest you have a separate table giving the MW for each power source and its percentage share of the whole. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "Hydroelectricity played a very significant role in the national installed power capacity since it was rapidly introduced in the 1950s–1990s." It is unclear whether this refers to the current situation - if it does, then I think you need "Hydroelectricity has played"
- On my computer the list of hydroelectric stations is pushed below the images, created a large blank space.
- What does nameplate capacity mean?
- What does the 'segment' column in hydroelectric refer to?
- No geolocation for hydroelectric stations under construction, and none for any of the dams.
- The physical locations of the power stations are not yet disclosed. Rehman 14:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- But you have a column for the location of power stations. Should this be location of water source? If so, the missing locations of the ones under construction are given in the separate articles about them. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the water source and power station are not always the same. They could be located large distances (dozens of kilometres) apart. The sub articles states the coordinates for the water source/dam, not the power plant. Rehman 09:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to be missing my point. You say above "The physical locations of the power stations are not yet disclosed." yet you have a column headed "Geo-location of power station" Dudley Miles (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is the commissioning date given for hydroelectric and not for other types?
- Commission dates (for non hydro) are very hard to find, and the published dates are often conflicting with other sources. I was considering if to remove the hydro dates (to be in line with others)... What do you think? Rehman 14:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I would personally remove them, but other editors may disagree.Dudley Miles (talk) 18:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "after numerous wrongdoings and hidden political dealings surfaced" "wrongdoings" is colloquial and vague.
- "The last privately owned first-come, first-served style wind farm projects, the Pollupalai and Vallimunai Wind Farms, were completed in late 2014, by when operations in the industry was ceased by presidential order.[" What are "first-come, first-served style wind farm projects"? Also "by when" is ungrammatical - and you say the industry was closed down and then give a list of operational stations.
- I'm trying to say that the Pollupalai and Vallimunai Wind Farms are the newest/last wind farms that were commissioned. I did some changes to the wordings, but I'm unsure if it gives out the correct meaning. Also, industry was closed down for new projects. Rehman 14:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "when operations in the industry was ceased until further notice" This implies that the whole industry has been closed down. Maybe "when the construction of new wind farms was suspended further notice" Does the closure affect the Mannar Island proposal? This should be made clear. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. I've added as "when the construction of new privately-owned wind farms were suspended until further notice", as that only applied to the private sector (the Mannar project was/is not affected). Thanks! Rehman 09:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "The last privately owned first-come, first-served style wind farm projects" You still have not explained what "first-come, first-served style" means. If there are no new private projects being approved why not delete it and just say "The last private sector wind farm projects"? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- In first-come-first-serve, if a particular developer submits an application for a particular patch of land, the gov assigns that land to that developer. Another developer cannot develop on the same patch of land. I will add an explanation to this later today or tomo (it's 06:35 now, need to head to work soon). If you wish to add yourself, please feel free. Also, they are not the last projects. Wind projects will be back online (the stopping of projects is only temporary). Rehman 00:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think more work is needed on this list. The information is limited compared with - for example - List of power stations in England, and inconsistent between different categories. For example, you give nearest city for thermal but not for other types. The type of fuel for thermal stations is crucial information which needs to be given. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nearest city is included for thermal power stations because, locally, most of these thermal stations are also commonly called by the names of their closest city. This is not the case for other types. Also, the list is maintained in a summarized type to avoid being stretched too far causing multiple devises to not display properly (such as the white space you mentioned earlier). I'm using a 1920px wide display, and it is already almost the widest it can comfortably be. For fuel, I have added a sentence explaining that all thermal plants run on fuel oil, except for Lakviyaja and Sampur.
- Thanks for the feedback Dudley Miles. I have responded to each point above with an indent. Rehman 14:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think most points are covered now. However, a column for geolocation of hydro water sources would be helpful. Separate tables for coal and oil are, in my view, crucial. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 21:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments by Giants2008
Oppose – Welcome to FLC, Rehman. The list you have worked on is certainly unique, and there is a lot of potential here. However, there are several issues remaining, which need to be addressed if this is to have a chance at promotion.
I like to offer support for topics that are different from what FLC normally sees, but there are simply too many prose and table issues right now. If you can fix them and satisfy Dudley, though, I would likely strike my oppose. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
|
- The new intro looks much better. However, in "with a smaller share from by small hydro facilities", "by" should be removed. Do that and make separate tables for coal and oil stations as Dudley suggested, and you can consider me in the support column. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Giants2008. Done. Is it better? Rehman 23:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Don't start the article with "The following page lists...." we don't have featured articles which start "The following article ...." do we?
- Graph caption has "hydropower" while the graph has "hydro power", be consistent. I would also avoid the glitzy graph style, 3D blocks, black background etc, this is an encyclopedic article, not a sales pitch.
- I don't think "government" should pipelink to Ministry of Power and Energy .
- Shouldn't "privately run" be hyphenated?
- Why is "Power Purchase Agreement" all capitalised?
- Link hydroelectricity the first time round.
- No need to relink megawatt.
- Or coal. So, in general, check for overlinking.
- Loads of white space in the Hydroelectric section because of those three large images down the right-hand-side of the article.
- That entire section of prose is unreferenced.
- Two Hydroelectric power stations have no geographical info. At least add a note to say why not.
- Please use human-readable dates for the commission date rather than YYYY-MM-DD.
- Check all references are formatted correctly, e.g. ref 11 is a bare URL.
--The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi The Rambling Man. Thanks for your comment. I have replied to each point above. Rehman 00:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, after 2 months this FLC hasn't managed to get a lot of support, and I'm going to have to close it to keep the FLC queue moving. Feel free to renominate in the future, once you've finished any outstanding reviewer concerns. --PresN 20:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been not promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.