Talk:Independent power producers in British Columbia

Comments on the Outline by Rosie
This is excellent!

Might you be able to expand your goal, and create a page for the whole of Canada? You could leave the sections for other provinces very short, with the hope/expectation that other Wikipedians would expand them (making sure to explain this in the Talk page). Or you could limit your page to BC (you have plenty of material) and say in the Talk page that you hope others will create corresponding pages for other provinces.

A map showing locations of projects would be great, but probably too much work. Maybe just a map of BC - you could annotate it showing which kinds of projects occur in which area.

Will you also be linking to specific projects? (Do any have web sites?) Rosieredfield (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Ruth 

I agree with Rosie, very good! My only slight concern is the sources that you are citing. Newspapers and websites are OK, but are there any peer reviewed published studies or similar that you could cite as well? RuthVancouver (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Peer review by Ellen
It is a well organised and laid out page, important topic and it will fit well into what is already on Wikipedia. Saying it is important for BC residents to stay informed and be aware at the end of the page seems like it is pushing an opinion on the reader which could be inappropriate for the Wikipedia page. Some of the information is quite general, for example in the wind turbine section – saying that a lot of land is often unavailable in developed countries is quite broad – I think it would be better to keep it specific to BC. Also when stating what wind turbines have been praised for – the benefits of them are more relevant to the main wind turbine page. References and external links are done well. I like the knowledge gap section but I think the title “knowledge gap” is a little colloquial. It could be renamed “research needed” or something similar. There is no map which Rosie suggested to put in but I think it is fine without, as there is a link to the British Columbia page which contains a map. Overall a great page, it seems like a lot of hard work has been put into it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellrobso (talk • contribs) 23:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review from Constance
A really good work has been done for this page.

Overall organization and content: The different sections are well-organized, in a logical order. The external links too. I would suggest you to remove your sentence " It is important for British Columbians to stay informed about IPP projects and be aware of the decision making process for the future of these projects" because it could be considered as subjective. I think your references are good but, did you find some research papers ? It could be relevant for having a different approach and information more diversed. Be careful to stay specific to BC by avoiding explanations too broad. Moreover, your heading " Knowledge gap" is not suitable and like has suggested Ellen, " Research needed" would be better.

Integration with other Wikipedia pages : You may try to find a way to include a link of your page in an existing Wikipedia page(for example " BC Hydro" page.

Standard Wikipedia page layout and organization : Everything required is present in your page. I can only highlight the fact that authors are missing in your references.

Writing quality : Nothing to say.

Illustrations : I like your pictures which represent quite well your writings.

Overall, clear and concise article. Very good job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collecon (talk • contribs) 01:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Russell
Excellent work, this is a great idea for a topic. I think a lot of people will find it useful!

You'll definitely need a citation for the last sentence in your run-of-river section, where you state that they are widely supported by the public. I know there have been protests against certain run-of-river projects (Like this one http://www.thewhistlernews.com/2013/05/14/upper-lillooet-run-of-river-hydroelectric-protests/), so that comment may generate some controversy unless you can back it up with a survey or statistics.

In your wind section, I'd recommend taking out or changing this sentence: "Wind turbines derive their energy from the force of the wind, thus it is a reliable and stable source for power." It's a bit self-explanatory that wind power comes from wind. Also, you call it reliable and stable power source but then a few sentences later you say it can be inconsistent and unreliable.

This sentence could be split into two to make it less awkward: "The ocean harbours an enormous energy potential, up to approximately 2 terawatts, and if tapped, could be the only source of energy needed to power the world."

You could add a few sentences on controversies or downsides to Biomass energy projects, I imagine they create quite a lot of smoke that could pollute our air.

Other than that everything looks great. Good illustrations, well written, organization and flow are well done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russell926 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Rosie
Content: The content and organization are very good, but I think you are providing too much background information about the different types of IPP, since readers can use your links to learn this from other Wikipedia pages. Here just mention the specific factors that are directly relevant to BC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosieredfield (talk • contribs) 09:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Ruth
Great page, just a few edits needed:


 * Include a few words about what the Electricity Purchase Agreement said and/or did


 * What is “ BC Hydro's utility cost”? The cost to the consumer? To the power producer?

“They leave smaller footprints compared to dam projects, and have zero carbon emissions” “The ocean harbours an enormous energy potential, up to approximately 2 terawatts, and if tapped, could be the only source of energy needed to power the world”
 * References need for:

“Hydroelectricity projects tend to diverts water”
 * Grammatical error:

“Further, these turbine require large amount of land; a crucial resource that is not freely available in most developed countries”
 * I am not the sentence below is true, especially not in Canada. We find space for them in England, and compared to England, Canada is pretty much nothing but empty space J. Also wind turbines can be put in the sea Offshore_wind_power:

“As the biomass is part of the carbon cycle, the net carbon footprint will neutral: there will always be a balance of carbon produced and carbon consumed.” ->
 * What about carbon used for production and transportation?:

RuthVancouver (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)