User:BrilliantMonkey/Choose an Article

Article Selection
Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

Option 1

 * Article title: Pumped-storage hydroelectricity:
 * Article Evaluation
 * -I see this article as a very well written and neutral source on this aspect of energy storage. However, there are limitations to the article when it relates to historic development and potential downsides to creating new reservoirs. Overall, the information presented comes from reputable sources and while not making an opinionated claim about the technology it does connect directly to renewable energy being the most likely accompaniment to these projects. Which is fair, as this is the primary theorized use case for pumped-storage hydroelectricity.
 * -To improve the article I would mainly edit in historic development of the technology or potentially alternative uses. However, I would certainly attempt to provide any information on downsides to construction, if there are any to be discussed.
 * Sources
 * https://www.hydropower.org/publications/the-world-e2-80-99s-water-battery-pumped-hydropower-storage-and-the-clean-energy-transition
 * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780124095403000049:
 * https://www.hydropower.org/publications/the-world-e2-80-99s-water-battery-pumped-hydropower-storage-and-the-clean-energy-transition
 * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780124095403000049:
 * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780124095403000049:

Option 2

 * Article title: Environmental impact of reservoirs:
 * Article Evaluation
 * -After reading the article what stands out to me is the presence of many ideas and important points but these appeared to be cut short almost. The writing seemed to quickly wrap up ideas and not expand upon vital information, simply facts were illuminated but left at that. Little discussion or depth for some points in the article, particularly around nutrient deficits and case studies. That said, what content was present was incredibly well researched with far more citations then expected as well as realistically neutral. For this page relating to negative environmental consequences it would be difficult to write it entirely without qualification.:
 * Sources
 * -https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/22/16020
 * -https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac263c/meta:
 * -https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac263c/meta:

Option 3

 * Article title: Hydroelectricity:
 * Article Evaluation
 * -Running on the theme of the prior two articles I looked at the hydroelectricity article, and it seemed to be the most fair and well balanced article so far. The editors created an article that gave both generous, well researched benefits as well as in-depth and understandable downsides. In particular the article provided many clear explanations some case specific examples of organizations giving their opinions on the topic. Of note was the inclusion of some speculative reasons hydroelectricity may be well suited though this did not have a source attached. :
 * Sources
 * -https://www.nrel.gov/research/hydropower.html
 * -https://www.iea.org/energy-system/renewables/hydroelectricity:
 * -https://www.iea.org/energy-system/renewables/hydroelectricity:

Option 4

 * Article title: Nuclear power plant:
 * Article Evaluation
 * -Reading through this article I could tell that certain sections may have entirely different authors. Most noticeable were some sections, such as 'systems', were very sparse in their citations. While I am sure the author is correct it would add more credibility to the article and follow Wikipedia's guidelines for there to be about one citation per paragraph at minimum. Other parts such as 'controversy' and 'safety' did include many citations. In total this article was informative and provided much of the information needed to get a general understanding of nuclear power plants, though the history of them as well as the systems section could benefit from more citations and inclusions. :
 * Sources
 * -https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306454912003477
 * -https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S002954931200492X:
 * -https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S002954931200492X:

Option 5

 * Article title: Spent nuclear fuel:
 * Article Evaluation
 * -This was the first article that I could very much tell needed more information added. Granted, the current state of the article does provide some basic information it lacks citations, examples, and in particular any section on safety of stored fuel. While much of the article details different types of fuel used for nuclear power that aspect is very well fleshed out and does not seem under researched. There is also the obvious omission of other types of nuclear waste mentioned.:
 * Sources
 * -https://www.iaea.org/topics/spent-fuel-management
 * -https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780081025710000148:
 * -https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780081025710000148: