Talk:Teesside EfW/GA1

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

Reviewer: NortyNort (Holla) 11:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I will review.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Initial comments
Lead
 * The last two sentences should be switched/reworded a little, it gives the impression that the planned plant is burning waste from places other than Teeside. Also, it would compliment the article and its structure better as well.
 * Megawatts: I see the installed capacity is 29.2 but according to the official website it produces 30 on average (max capacity?). Also, was the third line 19.2 MW or 20 MW? Should be a little clearer.

History
 * The background for the initial plant, before the third line, seems to be lacking. It doesn't have as much information (licences, manufacturers, etc.) as the planned unit or the third line. Is there any information that can be added? Not critical.

Third incineration line
 * "In May 2009 a third line was brought into operation" or "the third line"?
 * "As a result of the extension, a year later only a fifth of the waste that was being landfilled in Northumberland was still being sent there." Confused me a little, maybe a comma after "year later" and "prior" after "Northumberland" or re-write.

Design and specification
 * The 30 MW question again.
 * "In the 2009 extension uses a Von Roll Inova reciprocating..." Wording.

Other


 * File:NEERC.jpg needs a detailed detailed non-free use rationale in conjunction with the copyright tag. Also, the picture caption should say something along the line of "Rendition of..." as it doesn't exist yet.


 * Publishers in Ref #1 and #2 should be labeled, and corporate acronyms such as SITA spelled out; "Société Industrielle des Transports Automobiles (SITA)"
 * What is the cost of the different (existing, planned) plants and lines?

I will come back and finish the review soon.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've made a start on these improvements, the three main outstanding problems are the 30 MW question, the history of the plant and the costs. Also I don't what you mean about File:NEERC.jpg as it already has a rationale. First of all the MW issue. Different sources give different ratings, most give a rounded 20MW and 30MW ratings but the industcards source states the original plan being rated at 19.2MW. I don't know what should be done. Fintan264 (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding the rationale, the image is categorized in Category:Publicity photographs with missing fair-use rationale, see here for a guide as well. A better explanation of why the non free-use image is used is needed. As far as the power generating, the plant's wesbite states it generates 30 MW an hour on average. Industcards is a good source but I have seen some inaccuracies/contradictions with plants before along with what the owners/operators say too. I have done some research on it and found this which might help. ("Tees Valley" I found as an alternate name and search term as well.) That report has 29 MWh as the capacity, so it seems Industcards and the "28,626 MW" on the SITA website is somewhat consistent. Geez. 30 MW appears to be the rounded number and it is actually about 29 MW. I think 29.2 MW capacity sounds about right and it is easier to clarify.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Additonal plant

 * Should this at all be mentioned?

Expansion of operations
This article is short and I think it could be expanded more. This source (pp. 5-6) gives a little more detail on how it operates. In particular, I found processes like the emission control and APCR interesting to myself and more than likely other readers. I have no further comments on the article and believe it meets GA criteria. Well-written, an interesting read and a good job. Congrats.--NortyNort (Holla) 00:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I've enjoyed going through a GAR with an editor who helps with the research side of the article. Fintan264 (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)