Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of power stations in Sri Lanka/archive3

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 5 July 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
Nominator(s): Rehman 14:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the page title says, this is a list of power stations in Sri Lanka. The list is rich with content, referencing, pictures, and a map, and has comprehensive information that is not found elsewhere on the internet. The issues in the previous nominations are addressed accordingly. Pinging past reviewers: User:Dudley Miles, User:Giants2008, User:The Rambling Man, User:PresN, User:SchroCat, User:Calvin999. Thank you, Rehman 14:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

  • My queries have been dealt with in the previous review but a couple of minor points.
  • There is excessive white space. This could be reduced by making the map smaller and putting the photos of dams next to the list instead of above it.
  • What are "privately owned first-come, first-served style wind farm projects"? This needs clarification. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dudley. I am working on reducing the whitespace by adding a vertical scrollbar for the map; reducing its height by 50%. This should clear the whitespace for resolutions as low as 1280×800. I will ping you again once that's done. Thanks, Rehman 15:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
P.s. Reducing map size overlaps the links on the pogs (i.e. breaks them). The whitespace in the dam image area is fixed. And I have linked the "first-come first-served" term. Rehman 15:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think the scroll bar works. Now you cannot see the whole map at once, and some readers may not notice the scroll bar. How about going back to full size but cropping the sea at the top and bottom of the map? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley: Unfortunately, cropping is not an option as it uses the Location Map resources/files. Do you think it is better in the full form? Rehman 13:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it would be better full form. Maybe there is another way round the problem - e.g. put the map at the top of the page and move the bar chart to be under the lead on the left. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That creates a larger whitespace :( You can test screen resolutions on this nice site... Rehman 15:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My only issue is the map. I do not think the scrollbar is a good idea, but I will leave it to you how to deal with it. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Dan_arndt (Talk) 01:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
*Ref 2, 15 & 16 - no need to repeat the link to Ceylon Electricity Board as link already exists in Ref 1.
  • Similarly the link to Sunday Observer (Sri Lanka) in Ref 17 is repeated in ref 18 & 22.
  • Similarly with Ref 3 & 4 no need to repeat link
  • Same with Ref 5 & 6 - link only needs to be done once
  • Ref 12 provides link to Sunday Times (Sri Lanka), which is repeated in Ref 23 & 24
  • Ref 26 & 28 the publisher/newspaper is Daily News (Sri Lanka) not DailyNews.lk
  • No need to repeat link in Ref 19 & 31
  • Ref 7 the publisher is Ministry for Power and Renewable Energy not Ministry for Power and Energy of Sri Lanka
  • Ref 25, 33-36 the publisher is Windforce (Pvt) Ltd not Windforce.lk
  • Ref 14 & 20 appear to be dead links
  • Delegate note- it's perfectly acceptable to link every instance of a publisher in a reception section, as opposed to just the first, though just some of them is right out. --PresN 00:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Dan arndt and PresN. The publisher names and dead links have been fixed. Rehman 15:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dan arndt and PresN. Is there any more that I have missed? Rehman 01:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for delayed response. For Ref#28 the publisher/newspaper is Daily News (Sri Lanka) not DailyNews.lk. Ref#28 and Ref#30 both appear to be dead links. Ref#36 & #37 the publisher is Windforce (Pvt) Ltd not Windforce.lk. I still don't agree with the amount of overlinking of publishers in the reference list as it is not really necessary and all the FLs I've been involved in it has been actively discouraged. Dan arndt (talk) 02:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting back, Dan arndt. I have fixed the issues. For the linking of publishers, do you think it would be something that would shoot down an FL? I'm slightly leaning towards keeping them, only because it will be helpful to readers who load the refs inline (which is the more common way readers check refs). But nevertheless, I am willing to change it based on your next reply. Best regards, Rehman 14:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:REPEATLINK states "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." Repeating the same link in multiple references is unnecessary and given that this is proposed as a 'Featured List' the overlinking issue should be addressed. In accordance with WP:REDNOT you should avoid creating red links to articles that are not likely to be created and retained in Wikipedia. Once again as a proposed 'Featured List' it is probably best not to leave them in. Dan arndt (talk) 03:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Dan arndt. I will do the needful and update here again. Cheers, Rehman 15:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Dan arndt and PresN. I have updated the article. Is everything now in order? Rehman 14:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Vensatry

  • Both the images (barchart and map) bloat the corresponding sections. Consider swapping them or at least try to reduce the size.
Consider it fixed. See section above by Dudley. Rehman 15:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whitespace problem has been fixed. Rehman 01:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Thermal power station ', 'Small hydro', and 'Solar power' are over-linked in the lead
Fixed. Rehman 15:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with a 10–20 year power purchase agreement." - replace the dash with 'to'
Done. Rehman 15:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #1 points out to the publications tab; you need to be more specific for each and every claim covered in the lead.
Fixed. Rehman 15:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You need to specify the page nos. —Vensatry (talk)
Done. Rehman 02:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As of 2015, 1,464 megawatts of the total thermal installed capacity was from state-owned fossil fuel power stations; 900MW from Lakvijaya, 380MW from the state-owned portion of Kelanitissa, 160MW from Sapugaskanda, and 24MW from Uthuru Janani." You need to crosscheck the figures with the source.
Seems ok to me. Please let me know if you had spot an error. Rehman 15:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, the value for Uthuru Janani according to this source is: 26.7 (8.9*3) —Vensatry (talk) 06:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The net outputs if the unit is 8MW, the remainder is for running the plant itself. This is the case with many power stations worldwide. The official output capacity rating of the plant is 24, (see also). Rehman 02:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tables look good. I'll continue with the review once these comments are addressed. —Vensatry (Talk) 10:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the review, Vensatry. Best regards, Rehman 15:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Vensatry. Are there any further corrections to done? Rehman 01:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

  • As suggested by others, you need to reduce the size of the map; the readers can click the map and view it for a detailed view.
    • The map itself is not clickable, as each pog is a link. Either way, there is no more whitespace issue, right? Rehman 15:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add WP:ALT for all images.
  • Space needed between the numeral and unit. (For eg., 2,115MW)
  • Image captions are unsourced
  • The second para of 'Hydroelectric' section is wholly unsourced. You should expand the refs. for large paras.
  • "In 2015, only two grid-connected solar farms were operational ..." -> As of 2016 ...
    • Fixed. Rehman 15:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not done. —Vensatry (talk) 06:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. Reverted. While it is the same for 2016 as well, the remainder of the article has facts dated for 2015, mainly because the CEB posts a particular year's stats only late the following year. So 2015 details will be published later this year. To be consistent, I have put it back to 2015. Rehman 02:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either reduce the size of the images or find better placement. They make the table look clumsy.
  • What is 'comm.'? (in the Hydroelectric table) —Vensatry (talk) 17:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commissioned date. There is a tooltip loaded for that text. Rehman 15:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Better expand it. Also, what does '00' in 1984-10-00 and 2011-00-00 signify? —Vensatry (talk) 06:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • The 0000-00-00 format was used so that the sorting works property. But I have just found {{Sort}}, so this is now Fixed. Rehman 02:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Vensatry, replied to each point above. Rehman 15:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vensatry. Is everything now in order? Rehman 14:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You need to provide inline citations for most claims. Currently the refs. are placed at the end of the paras. It's an issue with large paras. —Vensatry (talk) 06:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Vensatry, replied to each comment above. Please let me know if there is anything else. Rehman 02:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Rehman:Nice fixes thus far. You might want to clarify 'Mixed' in the 'Owner' column. —Vensatry (talk) 16:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Vensatry:, I've added "ownership", would that help? Basically, since there is two types of ownership (private/gov), "mixed" means that the power station complex is party owned by the private sector, and partly by the government. Rehman 11:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You mean PPP? —Vensatry (talk) 11:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Private=PPP. Rehman 11:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why not clarify the same? —Vensatry (talk) 12:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm a bit confused. Was the problem relating to the use of the word "Mixed", or is it because the definition of "Private" is not included in the article? Rehman 09:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When you say 'mixed' it sounds a bit vague. Perhaps, clarify the same in a footnote. —Vensatry (talk) 12:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay, I get it. I've added a footnote, is it better? Thanks, Rehman 07:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Chris Woodrich

  • Rehman, when four or five different editors are telling you there's an issue with the images, you should probably think of alternatives. If the bar chart is illegible at smaller sizes, then a) reduce the years covered and b) increase the size of the text. People on mobile devices may have 600 or 800 pixels width to work with; a 650 px image will not work for them, at all. Remember, what works for your monitor might not work for others. The map is also an issue: I'm still getting whitespace issues between the end of the paragraph and the start of the first table. For the other images, I just need to shrink my window size by 150px (from 1366px wide) for them to force the table down and use to end up with a whole bunch of white space; in other words, anyone using a device with a display less than 1200px wide is going to get white space. You could probably address this by having the table a fixed percentage of the width of the screen: 74% works well for "Upright". For a forced 300px? Might need some experimentation.
  • Oppose until image issues are addressed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chris Woodrich. Maybe the chart doesn't belong here in the first place, since this is a list of power stations. I removed it, and it seems to have solved the majority of the whitespace issue. Is it better now? Rehman 15:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris Woodrich. Is it better now? Rehman 01:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering you're still getting negative comments about the map, and you appear to have missed part of my comment ("having the table a fixed percentage of the width of the screen: 74% works well for "Upright") as all you've done with the lower images is set them at 275px instead of 300px. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris: Negative comments? Maybe you're looking at older comments? Removing the bar chart helps remove the majority of the whitespace, so it was removed. Reducing the image width removes the remaining whitespace, so it was done. As per the link I provided above, the page now works well on nearly all display resolutions. Considering that the map no longer causes any noticeable whitespacing, is simply having the map a point against FL? Is there any other issues that warrants an oppose vote for this FL candidate? Please clarify, and I will do the necessary. Rehman 15:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Map is "overbearing", at the very bottom of this page, with no reply from you. A number of other comments of a similar vein throughout the page. I haven't seen anyone express satisfaction with the images. Your choice of works well 1366*768 as a small resolution (as requested by Vensatry) indicates that you don't quite understand the comments about the images. Mobile users don't have 1366*768 to work with. Tablet users don't. Hybrid users don't. Some netbooks don't even go that high (my old Acer One was something like 1024*600). Anyone using one of these devices will get massive amounts of whitespace. Even without the graph. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked on my phone: the pogs are barely visible, and certainly not tappable (screenshot on request). The map definitely needs work. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining, Chris. I have removed the map (there seems to be no other choice), and added the chart with some tweaks to how it behaves in smaller resolutions. Can you recheck and see if it is better? I've added the chart because it summarizes the capacities and production nicely, and makes the lead look less empty. Anything else you feel should be done? Thanks, Rehman 14:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris. Is everything now in order? Rehman 14:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Imzadi1979
Image comments—as with another nomination where I've commented, I'm getting large blocks of white space connected to the usage of the photo thumbnails above the tables. As I commented there, I think it would be better to convert those groupings of photos into galleries that appear either above or below the tables. That way they won't create a gap of white space below the end of the text and above the tables when readers have smaller screens or those who don't set their browsers to use the full width of a widescreen display. Imzadi 1979 → 08:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree: either a gallery across the page, or have the size parameter set to "upright". People don't need to,see the image in complete clarity on the page, but can click on the link for a closer look. – SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source review—since I'm here from my current renomination, I might as well turn to reviewing the sources used in the article:
    • FN1: Ceylon Electricity Board is a publisher, not a publication, so the name should be in |publisher= not |work=, which is how it is in FN2
    • FN5, etc, has Lanka Business Online as a publisher, when it's the name of a website, so it should be in italics. Ditto Lanka Daily News in FN8.
    • Traditionally, when the name of a newspaper lacks the city of publication in its name, that is given afterwards. For example, The New York Times contains "New York" in its title, but Daily News does not, so we'd have to additionally specify |location=New York with the latter to produce: "Daily News (New York)". Since several of the cited newspapers (or newspapers' websites) share publication names with other prominent papers, you should provide the missing locations for clarity.
    • The article is currently inconsistent in whether or not full first names are listed or truncated to initials. Either method is acceptable, however mixing them looks sloppy and unprofessional.
      • FN 18 has "P, Krishnaswamy" when the cited source gives the first initial as P and "Krishnaswamy" as the last name. In the inverted format in use in the article, this should appear as "Krishnaswamy, P.". FN 21 also has the first initials and last names reversed. (Since the cited sources don't actually give the full first name, unfortunately you can't spell them out for consistency with all of the other citations that do.)
    • FN 21, again a publisher appears to listed as a publication title in italics.
      • Are you able to provide more detail please? I can't find any. Rehman 02:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • It appears you fixed this one, but the atlas title should be in italics, citing it as a book (which is essentially is) rather than a webpage. Also, you might want to link directly to the atlas at http://www.nrel.gov/wind/pdfs/34518.pdf instead of the index. Imzadi 1979 → 04:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll reiterate that it isn't necessary to repeat links to publisher or publication names in multiple footnotes. In fact, it violates the spirit of WP:OVERLINK to repeat the links in every footnote. Also, if items are unlikely to get articles, the redlinks should probably be removed.
      • The 6th I have retained the links per PresN's advise above; anything in particular that you think should be removed? Rehman 02:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Last comment, but the capitalization isn't consistent in source titles, probably because you've directly copied how each one was individually formatted. This means you have some, like FN1–3 that use Title Case, and then FN4 uses Sentence case. If you were publishing an article or paper in APA style, you'd be told to harmonize them all into a specific case style. Our MOS allows either, but like another of my comments above, we're supposed to do things consistently.
      • I thought it was a requirement to state it exactly as per source, and hence didn't pay much attention to consistency. I will recheck and update here again. Rehman 02:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • No such requirement. Editors have always been able to quietly alter and harmonize formatting to achieve a polished appearance in their writing. The key is not to alter meaning, just formatting. Our MOS tells us, for instance, to replace « and » with quotation marks when copying quotations from other languages. We can even silently correct spelling errors, unless there's a reason to retain them with a " [sic]". Harmonizing the case of a title is no different, and as I noted, the APA style would require editors using it to change source titles to a specific case style when crafting citations regardless of the original publication's formatting. In short, you can and should harmonize citations for the polished look expected in feature-level material. Imzadi 1979 → 04:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another related item, is the punctuation used to separate a title from a subtitle. FN31 uses the more standard colon, while FN32 uses the non-standard spaced hyphen.
  • I hope these comments help. The sources meet the reliability and quality tests required for featured-level work, so it's just a matter of polishing their presentation. Imzadi 1979 → 09:12, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Imzadi1979 and SchroCat. The whitespace issue has already been fixed. Do you still get whitespace? I will look at the refs and update again. Thanks, Rehman 01:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Replied to each point above. Thanks again, Rehman 02:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, the whitespace issue is still there. Also, with the chart as the lead image now instead of the map, the text is very squished. On my screen, I have my web browser windows set to approximate the width of a printed letter sheet of paper. Accounting for the menu on the left, the display area on a Wikipedia page is about 6+1⁄2 inches (17 cm) wide, which is about what would appear printed on letter paper (8+1⁄2 by 11 inches or 22 by 28 centimetres) with the standard 1-inch-wide (2.5 cm) margins. With the size of the bar chart, it takes up 5 inches (13 cm), leaving only 1+1⁄2 inches (3.8 cm) for text. I took a peek at the coding, and it's set to 650px, yet our MOS says that lead images should normally be only 300px. In short, I think you need to move this down someplace else and center it so that you aren't trying to display text next to it.
        As for the other sections, I still have a bunch of white space. In the "Hydroelectric" section, I have a block 4+1⁄2 inches (11 cm) side by 4 inches (10 cm) tall. The blank block in the "Wind power" section is better at 1+1⁄2 inches (3.8 cm) tall. Imzadi 1979 → 09:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for the detailed reply User:Imzadi1979. I have done some changes to the way the images behave. Is it better? Rehman 13:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Imzadi1979, @SchroCat: Is everything in order now? Rehman 14:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Rehman: much better with the galleries. Imzadi 1979 → 06:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - The images and map are overbearing. The first thing readers see when visiting this article is a map which takes up a large chunk of the screen. The map needs to reduced in size and re-positioned; or got rid off entirely. If the images are to be positioned next to the text they should be reduced in numbers and size. As it stands some browsers/screens are showing large amounts of white space. Ideally the images should be positioned inside the tables (e.g. List of national parks of the United States, List of London Underground stations) or next to the tables. Is this a list of modern or all power stations in Sri Lanka? If it's the latter it is incomplete as it excludes older, decommissioned power stations.--obi2canibetalk contr 18:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Obi2canibe: Above issues are fixed as discussed in the previous sections. This is a list of modern power stations as well as notable decommissioned ones from the recent past. Thanks, Rehman 14:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Noted.--obi2canibetalk contr 10:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Review by PresN
Before I start: @Vensatry: are you willing to support/oppose this nomination now?
As promised, as this has hit the bottom of the stack I'm reviewing so it doesn't fall through again.
  • "with a smaller share from small hydro facilities, and other renewables such as solar" - no comma needed
  • "12,357GWh" - isn't a space needed between the number and GWh, for all such instances in this sentence, just like you do with MW?
  • "from state-owned fossil fuel power stations;" - should be a colon, since the following is a list of said power stations (and their generation)
  • "Hydroelectricity had played a very significant role in the national installed power capacity since it was introduced in the 1950s–1990s," - since it's still a major source of power, "has" is more correct than "had", and the date range does not make sense- something can't be introduced in a time span of 50 years that ended <20 years ago. Should be "since it was introduced in the 1950s."
  • "The following table lists all the state-run hydroelectric power stations." - sentence should be cut; not only is this followed by another paragraph and not a table, the end of that paragraph says the same thing but more explicitly about what is not included.
    • Removed sentence. Rehman 15:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The solar power table gives one plant as "state-owned", but the thermal table uses "government" to mean the same thing; should be consistent.
  • If "P L" in "Ulagalla Walawwa Resort P L" and the names in the Wind Farm table is an incorporation mark like "Co.", "Inc.", etc., then it should not be included in the name
    • Removed all the incorporation marks. Rehman 15:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noticed that the Hydro table has the start dates in it, but none of the other tables do. Why is Commission date important there but not elsewhere?
    • This concern was raised in a previous nomination as well. Reason is because the dates of most of the other plants are not readily available. I wanted to remove the dates for hydro, just to be constent, but I am not in favour in removing information for the sake of style... But that's just my opinion. Do you think there is the better way to handle this? Rehman 15:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The hydro table has the headers "Name of Power Station" and "Geo-location of power station", but all the others just say "Station" and "Location"
  • That's it, as I see you got a source review up above. --PresN 20:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @PresN:, @Vensatry:. Thanks for the review. I'm currently at Wikimania pre-conference, but I cannot find stable internet. I will definitely look into this as soon as possible. Please give me a bit of time. Thanks, Rehman 14:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN:, replied above. Rehman 15:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the part of me that likes consistent style is frowning, but I agree that it's probably better to not remove information just because you only have it for one plant type. now Support. --PresN 16:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vensatry: - it looks like all of your review concerns have been addressed; are you willing to return and support or oppose? --PresN 16:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support The main stumbling block I had with this list was the use of images, which has subsequently been cleared up - and the article now works visually on PCs and smaller tablet and mobile screens. Nice work on the tables too, and the prose is well-written and covers enough information that I wasn't left with any questions on the topic. - SchroCat (talk) 06:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_power_stations_in_Sri_Lanka/archive3&oldid=1136457021"