User:EaglesEyes1/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Small modular reactor

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

This article on small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) was selected for evaluation because this emergent technology may become increasingly important as nations and industries strive to reduce their carbon emissions. I initially searched for articles on the history of the nuclear industry in Canada, but then navigated toward contemporary topics, including SMRs. SMR technology is one of the focuses of modern nuclear research and this technology may become a key part of the energy supply ecosystem of a low-carbon future, so I was keen to learn more about it. This article is appropriate for evaluation given the scope of ERTH 4303, as SMR technology, which is founded upon the extraction and use of various finite mineral resources (particularly radioelements used as fuel), presents a complex array of social, economic, and environmental benefits and risks. My first impression of the article was not great; it read as repetitive, biased, lacking in adequate citations, lacking in flow, features contradictions, and the variety of content seemed unbalanced. The overall quality of writing could be improved. There is some good material, and it avoids becoming overly technical, but this article appears to be a work in progress.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Suggestions for improvement are provided throughout this evaluation.

Clarity: This article is moderately clear, though its lack of structure and some sections feature poor writing. In particular, the Lead lacks clarity and brevity. A more specific definition of SMRs is required in the Lead. Weaker sections include “Safety” and “Nuclear Proliferation”, which could benefit from major editing. In many cases, contradictory statements leave the reader unsure of the intention of the writer. For instance, the Lead section states that SMRs will have lower staffing costs than traditional nuclear power plants, while the “Economics” section states that SMR staffing costs could be higher than traditional nuclear plants.

Structure: The article lacks sufficient structure, logical flow, and appropriate headings. The Lead does not provide clear, cited definition(s) for SMRs, does not adequately summarize the content, and is not concise. It could be argued that there is no Lead at all, but instead a mishmash of poorly cited statements. The “Background” section similarly includes three paragraphs of limited utility and could be abridged. The “General aspects” section is disjointed, with some subsections of only one or two sentences. Larger subsections of “General aspects” including “Flexibility of SMR”, “Safety”, and “Proliferation” are redundant as there are other sections dedicated to these topics. The “Designs” section does not appear to be unique to SMRs and could should instead simply link to other articles on “thermal-neutron reactors” and “fast neutron reactors”, as suggested on the Talk Page. The “Safety” section is poorly written and features six paragraphs of only one or two sentences, three of which start with “Some”. This section also contains a 139-word quotation followed by three citations. It is recommended that this quote be paraphrased with proper citation. Statements about heating, hydrogen production, and desalination are repeated almost verbatim in four different parts of the article; highly redundant. Strong sections of the article include the table summarizing proposed and existing SMR projects and the “Proposed sites” section, which is well written and sourced. Overall, too much of the article is dedicated to highlighting the pros and cons of proposed SMR technology (with a strong bias towards the pros), so that the article reads as a lopsided debate. It is recommended that the article be modified to include dedicated sections on  “Advantages” and “Disadvantages” to reduce the point/counterpoint narrative that pervades the current text.

Images: There is only one image featured in this article, which is from the public domain and is cited. It is recommended that more images be incorporated in the article to add variation and interest to the text.

Balanced Coverage: As mentioned, this article features unbalanced coverage. Throughout, the potential benefits of SMRs are highlighted with far less focus on the potential drawbacks of this technology. This is apparent in the references which rely too heavily on promotional information from SMR proponent companies and agencies, or on sources that are now out of date considering the rapid advancement of this technology.

Neutrality: There is a bias in this article towards highlight the potential benefits of SMR technology based too often on sources from private firms involved in SMR development, or with no citation at all. For example, in the Lead it is stated that “[i]deally, modular reactors will reduce on-site construction, increase containment efficiency, and are claimed enhance safety,” with no citation provided. This article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Talk Page: The article is rated as a Start-Class with High-Importance by WikiProject Energy, and as C-Class with Low-Importance by WikiProject Science Policy. Both classifications highlight the incomplete nature of the article and its lack of adequate sources. The talk page features useful suggestions for improvements, including the removal of an “Operation” section, which appears to have been done, or it was condensed into the “Designs” section. Other critiques include the absence of a “Disadvantages and Limitations of SMRs” section and a callout for the article being too promotional and biased. An unsigned post from January 2, 2022, indicates that a “Disadvantages” section had been posted and removed, prompting the author to suggest the site should be blocked by a supervisor. A final suggestion is for the tone of the article to shift from the current perspective which suggests that SMRs are established technology to the more accurate perspective of SMRs being in the R&D phase.

Sources: 126 references are provided for this article. Of these sources, 1 is empty, 8 are redundant, many are from company promotional material or grey literature, and only 10 are from peer-reviewed journals or publications (6 of these featuring the same author). It is recommended that redundant references be consolidated. Admittedly, much of the research and development on SMR technology is being conducted by private firms, so there is justification for featuring company sources, though the bias of these sources is seldom noted in the article. Because SMR technology is rapidly advancing, many of the sources are likely outdated, even if only one to two decades old. Many facts in the article are not cited, including 6 statements with existing “[citation needed]” tags. More peer-reviewed content from reputable journals is strongly encouraged. Two recommended citations include:

SCHAFFRATH, A., WIELENBERG, A., KILGER, R., & SEUBERT, A. (2021). SMRs - overview, international developments, safety features and the GRS simulation chain. Frontiers in Energy, 15(4), 793–809. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11708-021-0751-2

·      This review article explains the lack of clarity on the definition of SMR and presents the two most common definitions based on reactor energy output. This would be an appropriate citation for the Lead “Small modular reactor” section to help clarify what SMRs are.

Michaelson, D., & Jiang, J. (2021). Review of integration of small modular reactors in renewable energy microgrids. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 152, 111638–. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111638

·      This review article discusses the integration of SMRs into electricity microgrids and would be appropriate for the “Siting/infrastructure” section.