Talk:Tehachapi Energy Storage Project/GA1

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

Reviewer: Maury Markowitz (talk · contribs) 12:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I have a number of concerns with this article, and I haven't even managed to make it past the lede.


 * The very first ref in the articles doesn't even mention TSP as far as I can tell, nor SCE, or anything else related to the topic.
 * The lede makes statements that are not found in the body. For instance, the four-hour use and number of homes is not mentioned in the body.
 * The lede makes the trivial comparison to hybrid vehicles, which is the sort of thing that reduces the clarity of the article (which hybrids? the Volt or the Civic?). And this too appears nowhere in the body.
 * The article is filled with significant over-citation. For instance, in the lede a single statement has 17 cites on it, all of which are simply quoting the same original press release. As these are all included in-line in ref tags, the source text is practically unreadable.
 * Most of the body text consists of large single-paragraph blocks of text that glom together unrelated topics. These need to be broken up for readability.

The material itself is fine, and reasonably organized and imaged. But it does need a good copyedit and the refs have the significantly trimmed. Nothing that can't be fixed within the GA period, but I am curious about the nom's desires here - do you wish to make edits yourself, or should I go at it? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review and comments. Yes, it would be helpful if you can provide the suggested edits. I am new to this and would like to learn more. --Renewableandalternativeenergy (talk) 15:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Ok I'm heading out for the weekend, but I'll start work on it next week. I'll leave detailed notes in the checkins so you can see why I do certain things. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. I will start filtering out the references to reduce duplicates. --Renewableandalternativeenergy (talk) 12:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * To try to help with the review, I made some attempts at reducing the number of references, as well as adding some spacing to separate some of the content. Hopefully, this is helpful. --Renewableandalternativeenergy (talk) 12:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Excellent** updates! The only bit of the body I would suggest editing is to move the history to the top of the first section and expand it if possible. The idea that this was a little test rack that turned into a production system is interesting. The lede still needs some edits, but other than that it looks good. I'll get started on moving the cites to the bottom.


 * Thank you for the edits and for the continued feedback. I will try moving some of the history as suggested.  For the lede, should I review your original comments and try to include the feedback?  --Renewableandalternativeenergy (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I tried to incorporate the feedback about the lede. --Renewableandalternativeenergy (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * As suggested, some history was expanded, including information and perspectives about the subscale testing. --Renewableandalternativeenergy (talk) 01:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I reviewed the feedback items and I think that most of them have been addressed (or at least attempted to be addressed). Can you please let me know if there are additional items that I should try to help with or work on during the GA review period?  Thank you.  --Renewableandalternativeenergy (talk) 01:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you please let me know if there are additional revisions needed for the GA review? Thank you very much. --Renewableandalternativeenergy (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, back, sorry for the delays. Following the reviewer's guide...


 * 1) the prose is good to go. I'd like to see some more if this goes to FA, just fleshing out the history of the project, but this is *more* than good for GA.
 * 2) I have spot checked the refs and didn't find anything remotely questionable. I would personally used SFNs for the inline citations, but that has no bearing on this review.
 * 3) coverage is fine. One might compare the system to others, but in this rapidly moving field anything you add is likely to be out of date by the time you click Publish.
 * 4) the article meets any definition of NPOV I could imagine.
 * 5) with the exception of the changes for this GA process, the article is stable and likely to be for some time.
 * 6) the images are useful and good quality. All of them are PD as they come from Sandia and everything on their commons pages looks correct.
 * 7) there are no copyviows that I can see.

I think this is good to go. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review, useful feedback, and the promotion to Good Article. --Renewableandalternativeenergy (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)