User:ObliqueFault/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Geothermal power in Canada

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I am increasingly curious about Geothermal power; I have found it difficult to find geological or energy-based literature about Geothermal potential, especially in Canada that can be easily read by a non-engineering-educated reader. This article was flagged by Wiki as needing to be rewritten to Wiki quality standards with respect its Manual of Style. However, the significant absence of expected geothermal topics and sub-topics, the scarcity of referenced content and content with vested interests, was also problematic. This article was written under the umbrella of WikiProject Energy, but designated as of 'low-importance' which is surprising given the Canada's geothermal potential.

Evaluate the article
Lead section

It is not meaningful to evaluate this lead section without jumping a bit ahead to the content of the article itself. Overall, the article does not explain nor adequately qualify or quantify the topic of 'Geothermal power in Canada'. Instead it is patchwork of various sub-topic explanations. A potential article outline is suggested under the 'Content' heading.

As is, the lead section is not an abridgement or brief summary of the article. This first paragraph is limited to 7 sentences, and 4 of these sentences repeat the same content: Canada has geothermal potential;  this is presented as a declaration because no meaningful citation is used. The second and fourth sentences may have been valid at the time of writing but is no longer the case. There are many examples, even in the existing references for this article! that Canada isn't just limited to direct-use geothermal. The 2019 construction of Canada's first geothermal power plant in Estevan, Sask. has been wide covered in domestic and American newspapers and news channels. The third sentence stating 'Canada has 103,523 direct use installations as of 2013' which is too specific and trivial to be in a summary section and without the comparisons to other countries or years which would make it in anyway meaningful. The 5th sentence, stating EGS exists in Canada should be removed. Enhanced geothermal energy systems are not defined nor elaborated on anywhere in the article, although this type of geothermal should be part of a sub-topic in the article. The concluding sentence of the section states that CanGEA, an industry association knows of 6 geothermal power plants and 2 direct energy projects [in Canada]; this sentence adds no value to the lead section summary, nor to the article and it even directly contradicts the second sentence. To explain the Wiki topic: Geothermal Power in Canada, and touch on all the major sub-topics, this lead section needs to be re-written. But not re-written until the problematic aspects of the content are improved.

Content

There are key topics and sub-topics that would be expected in an abridgement of Geothermal power in Canada that are completely absent from this article. The major headings expected for the outline of this topic would be:  What is Geothermal energy and how can it be used;  What is the current technology to obtained it; How much energy can be harvested and at cost per kW/hr. What are the geological and geographical conditions that have high geothermal potential ; where are these conditions found in Canada;    what are the barriers to geothermal energy development in Canada;  what are the development incentives;  what projects are operational;  what projects are approved or proposed;   What are promising new technologies being tested.

Instead of the major topics suggested above, the article is lob-sided with unconnected major topics treated trivially and minor subtopics given too much weight. The section on Geothermal Resources in Context, doesn't merit more than a sentence: Canada was slow to develop geothermal resources with respect to other countries in the Ring of Fire (convergence tectonic settings) and the US. The section titled: 2012 Geological Survey of Canada Report is the title of an influential Canadian government geothermal report which is a reference for this article. It should not be a title for this section. And the section itself, should only be a sentence: that Grasby et al., 2012 report qualifies and quantifies and pin-points locations in Canada of substantial geothermal potential. The next major section is titled: Highest potential regions should be more suitable titled:  Types of electrical generation. Dry steam and flash steam and binary cycle power stations are briefly described and provinces in Canada where these technologies could be or are being used are listed. However, the topic of types of generation should be explained in much greater detail as types of electricity generation should be a significant section of this article. The second paragraph of this section is about geothermal potential regions and should be expanded as this is an important sub-topic.

The final section of article deals with Recent developed or developing geothermal projects. As I do not work in the geothermal industry and my information is solely from published or broadcasted sources, I am not able to adequately comment on this section. However, the item in Alberta developments of a potential hybrid natural gas and geothermal resource extraction, is an item that should be included in more detail, if only in the Talk section, to see if there is more details beyond the reference in the article.

Tone and Balance

The article appears to have had multiple authors or perhaps multiple minor edits. The focus meanders and contains many sentences that add no value. The geothermal content appears to mostly on the material of CanGEA and GeoThermal but without any citations. The lack of citations, the omnipresent of low-value sentences, and the lack of a suitable outline, make the article seems not relevant and surficial.

Sources and References

There are 16 references: 7 from geothermal industry association news articles; 3 from main stream media news channels; 2 from provincial government agencies; 3 from Canada's Geological Survey[CGS]; and 1 academic report (although indirectly from [CGS] ). Three of the links from industry news articles no longer function but 13 out of the 16 are downloadable in pdf and are free. With respect to the value these references provide to the article: Out of the 16 reference used, only the 322-page 2012 report of  Stephen Grabsy  et al.'s  'Geothermal Energy Resource Potential of Canada', 2012 is widely cited. It is in the top 5 references of any Canadian geothermal article/paper that I have read. Four mainstream media or geothermal industry association articles are very surficial on geothermal content outside of promoting their firm or the individual firm's involvement in a particular project and add no value to the material in the article. All the references from the various geothermal industry associations have not been prefaced where they are included in the article, with the nature of these organizations; without this context it is not possible to gauge their vested interest in how they present a topic. For example, CANgea is not a government agency, it is an association of Geothermal consultants and firms and yet its webpage states that it is non-profit and that its revenue comes from membership and sales of publications from the Canadian National Geothermal Database. And yet, in the lead section of the article, implies that only the geothermal project listed with them are projects of significance in Canada.

Organization and writing quality

The entire article is choppy. It reads as if it was generated from a collection of sentences emplaced together without any initial outline. It needs an outline of major Canadian geothermal development topics. Very little of this original article would be required in a complete re-write. The section on Recent developments is an exception to this. This section is well organized and cited.

Images and Media

Despite being about Geothermal potential in Canada, the article includes a Californian geothermal power plant. It is unknown if there is a copyright issue, but multiple Canadian newspapers had pictures of the Estevan, Saskatchewan power plant, Canada's first power plant. Although as of today's date, it may not be fully operational.

A second photo is included in the article of a Canadian creek beside a hot spring vent. This photo can trigger the idea that the ground can be hotter than the air but as images are limited in a Wiki article, the article's topic may have been better served by a map of heat gradients at depth across Canada or across Western Canada so the reader could easily distinguish not all of Canada has readily available geothermal resources and why there are in particular geologies and hence locations across Canada.

A third photo of the Okanogan Valley, B.C. serves no meaningful purpose to the article.

The see Also section

This was well done. Most of the commonly associated alternative to geothermal energy are listed here: wind power; solar power;  hydroelectric power, renewable energy in Canada;  renewable energy by country.

External Links

This section is not transparent. CanGEA and Geothermal Canada's link is here. These 2 industry associations are the source of much of the article. Grasby et al, 2013 report is actually the link under the label 'Government of Canada. The link for Canadian Geo Exchange Coalition doesn't work nor are they mentioned nor referenced in the article.

Talk page discussion

The talk page suggests that there has been no Talk comments since 2010. however there are 2020 dated reference and recent geothermal development project listed within the article. Hence the Talk page itself may be unused. Despite the lack of Talk page activity, a lot has happened in the last 10 years in geothermal development in Canada.

Overall impressionsAn entire article rewrite for structure and more appropriate introduction and weighting to the major topics and sub-topics is badly needed.