User talk:Pichemist/Archive 22

Request on 06:20:26, 2 January 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Phosphoreux
Hi, will you help me understand please what the issue is with my proposed articles for the coal plants in South Carolina? I based them almost word-for-word on the existing article on Cross Generating Station. The references include information from the South Carolina Public Service Commission and the Energy Information Administration, and I'm not sure what the problem would be with those sources. As far as I can tell, both of those meet the in-depth, reliable, secondary, and independent criteria listed in the rejection. It is hard to find many sources other than those two for information about specific power plants in a single state, and I don't see how adding more frivolous sources just to get it approved would improve the article. If there is anything inaccurate, I'm happy to correct it or make any other changes as needed. I updated the articles following the last rejection, and at this point I don't know what else I'm supposed to do. I posted a similar message in response to the previous reviewer and never received a response, which was frustrating especially because I was accused of greenwashing even though I was just following the existing format on Cross. I think it is very important that Wikipedia has information on these coal plants, especially because the Cross plant already has an article, and there aren't many people willing to put in the work to document the necessary info for something like this. I understand Wikipedia has high standards, but it is really demotivating that I've been rejected twice now with minimal guidance on what to do differently. Thanks for your help!

Phosphoreux (talk) 06:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I didn't approve your article based on the fact that the references do not seem to be in-depth as they do not seem to go into too much detail about the station. If you want I can take another look tough. Signed, Pichemist ( Contribs &#124; Talk ) 06:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That would be great, thanks! I'm not sure what you mean by "in-depth" in this case. The sources provide accurate and clear information about the stations, including their location, type of fuel burned, emissions, and nameplate capacity. I hope to expand the articles more in the future, but in my hubmle view, having an article for these plants is important even if it is just the basic stuff. It will take much more work to try and find other sources for specific generating stations in a relatively small state, and frankly I don't know how many folks are out there who care enough to do so. I based these articles off of the Cross Station, but if you decide to decline again, I would sincerely appreciate some guidance about what other information to include and what kind of sources would be acceptable. Thanks! Phosphoreux (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)