Talk:Wind power in Texas/Archive 1

Good article nomination on hold
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of August 10, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: Good.
 * 2. Factually accurate?: Good.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: The coverage is good; however, the article's organization is problematic. The last part from "King Mountain Wind Farm (278 MW)" to "Sand Bluff Wind Farm (90 MW)" seems too much like a list, and the article has too many sections.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Good.
 * 5. Article stability? Good.
 * 6. Images?: A few images would improve the article.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 19:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * 1) It is stable.
 * 2) It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * 1) Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:

King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 19:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing. I have requested that an image be included in the article, using the reqphoto tag above. I have also removed some section headings to make the article less like a list. I have also expanded one section, and as more info becomes available will be able to expand other sections. -- Johnfos 21:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If images are the only problem, then I'm going to promote this, that's not a reason to not promote. Wizardman  19:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted. The structural problem with the list of the various wind farms has not been fixed. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This problem has now been overcome, as only five of the largest wind farms are listed separately now... Johnfos 22:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

DHMO's GA review (on hold)
Those are my GA comments (aswell as anything/everything requested above that hasn't been done) - and below is an auto-PR for some extra suggestions. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 04:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The "Summary table: Wind farms in Texas" table doesn't look too good - I think the redlinks should be removed. You should also play around with the column widths - the second column is too narrow, and the header looks bad.
 * Got another image? 2 would be better then one, if relevant.
 * A lot of the redlinks throughout the article should be removed, or the article created.
 * Other wind farms section - convert to list/table. I've tagged it for this - the way it's written now isn't good, as it's clearly a list but is disguised as prose.

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 04:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Consider adding more links to the article; per Manual of Style (links) and Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
 * There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
 * Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -  between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 24 km, use 24 km, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 24&amp;nbsp;km.[?]
 * Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
 * Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “ All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
 * The script has spotted the following contractions: couldn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]


 * Gee, Giggy, I think you're being a bit tough, and will just have to accept that this article is not going to be a GA. Thanks anyway... Johnfos 06:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is tough for a GA. Wikipedia should maintain the highest standards. I created a commons:Category:Wind power in Texas and added every image I could find to it. Which was surprisingly few images. Texas has about twice the installed wind power of the United Kingdom, but look at all the images I found to add to commons:Category:Wind power in the United Kingdom (and there are many more on Geograph British Isles). Of course the U.K. is far more densely populated than west Texas, so the U.K. has are a lot more people around its wind turbines. More of them might use these newfangled computers, too. I found a few appropriately licensed images of wind turbines in Texas on Flickr which I will upload to Commons eventually. (Most Flickr images are not free, unfortunately.) --Teratornis (talk) 01:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Template needs to be moved
Hi Anphibian, and thank you for another useful template. But I really think it needs to be put at the end of the article. To have it in the "See also" section interrupts the flow of the article. Johnfos 20:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Have moved template now... Johnfos 00:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the template in question might have been consolidated, so any one interested should follow the template discussions instead. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 14:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

TXU
Wind power in Texas mentions TXU several times. TXU appears to be called Luminant now, and is a subsidiary of Energy Future Holdings Corporation. The TXU page is a redirect to the Energy Future Holdings Corporation article. Presumably this means changing all instances of "TXU" in the article to "the Luminant subsidiary of Energy Future Holdings Corporation." A cleaner solution would be to create a Luminant section in the Energy Future Holdings Corporation article, describing what it is, and then create a Luminant redirect to that section. Then we would only have to replace each instance of TXU with an instance of Luminant. Or Luminant could have its own article, since it's already redlinked from Energy Future Holdings Corporation. --Teratornis (talk) 00:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)