Talk:Scout Moor Wind Farm/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The lead is a bit short; I would recommend at least something on the construction be added, at least the brand of turbines, the cost and annual production (MWh). Actually, non-British readers may not know what an MP is—so you gotta write it out in full the first time. Any reason the max effect isn't mentioned in the key facts?
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * If a paragraph only has one reference, it is sufficient to have a single ref at the end of it.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Placed on hold. Interesting and well written article. A little short lead, and please add the per-turbine effect to the table. When resolved the article should pass. If you have any questions or comments, don't hesitate to ask. Arsenikk (talk)  22:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Placed on hold. Interesting and well written article. A little short lead, and please add the per-turbine effect to the table. When resolved the article should pass. If you have any questions or comments, don't hesitate to ask. Arsenikk (talk)  22:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Placed on hold. Interesting and well written article. A little short lead, and please add the per-turbine effect to the table. When resolved the article should pass. If you have any questions or comments, don't hesitate to ask. Arsenikk (talk)  22:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The key facts mostly come from one source, there are other sources but they all have the same facts copied from each other - What do you mean by the "max effect"? Richerman (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Windmills normally have a max effect (typically 3 or 3.5 MW), and is the typical main benchmark for measuring the size of windmills. The effect will be proportionate with the wind speed up to some limit (such as 14 m/s) and will continue producing at this max effect until turn-off point (such as 25 m/s). I presume taking 65 MW / 26 turbines would give the max effect per turbine. Arsenikk (talk)  23:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Based on this, I think it may be 2.5 MW. --Jza84 | Talk  23:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think all the problems have been fixed now - how does it look? Richerman (talk) 01:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Passed. I have tweaked some of the values trying to create consistency with the MoS and internally in the article. Try to stick to either metric or imperial units as the primary value throughout the article. For further improvements beyond the GA criteria, feel free to expand the article if more information is found, and also the lead is rather small; additional information can be added if wanted. Arsenikk (talk)  13:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "Max effect" sounds like a synonym for nameplate capacity. As we have a link for nameplate capacity, I suggest standardizing the terminology on it, and linking at least the first instance in an article. --Teratornis (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)