Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Scout Moor Wind Farm


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:07, 23 December 2008.

Scout Moor Wind Farm

 * Nominator(s): Malleus Fatuorum

I'm nominating this article on the United Kingdom's largest onshore wind farm on behalf on the Greater Manchester WikiProject. It's relatively short at 1,317 words, but I believe that it's nevertheless comprehensive and meets the FA criteria. Malleus Fatuorum 22:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Image review - All images have descriptions and verifiable licenses. Awadewit (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The article looks good, overall. The above comments are minor, and should be easy to fix. –Juliancolton Tropical   Cyclone  00:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Comments
 * Scout Moor Wind Farm is the largest onshore wind farm in England. - This leaves me to wonder; are there any larger offshore wind farms?
 * Powered by twenty six Nordex N80 wind turbines, it has the capacity to generate 65 MW of electricity, providing 154,000 MWh per annum, which is enough to serve the average needs of approximately 40,000 homes. - Inconsistency with spelling out numbers.
 * The site lies across 2 miles (3.2 km) of open moorland between Edenfield, Rawtenstall and Rochdale, - Link moorland.
 * The second presentation was given by a representative of Scout Moor Wind Farm, who argued the need for Britain to produce clean green power, without harmful emissions, in order to counter the increasing dangers of global warming. - Remove "in order".
 * The last quote of the History section should be incorporated into the text.
 * Could the Key facts be renamed to "Overview"? "Key facts" seems slightly POV as to what kind of fact is considered "key".


 * All changed apart from the first point, which I don't have the answer to. Nev1 (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added a bit to the lead mentioning the only larger offshore windfarm, Kentish Flats. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Changed to support. –Juliancolton Tropical   Cyclone  01:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments -
 * Current ref 6 (Joint Lancashire ..) is lacking a publisher
 * What makes http://www.newenergyfocus.com/go/pages/home.html a reliable source?
 * Likewise http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2006-04-20b.63419.h?
 * Please spell out lesser known abbreviations in the footnotes, such as NUAE
 * What makes http://www.thestringer.co.uk/CV/profile.html a reliable source?
 * Is http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/home/ a newspaper website?
 * http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/northern_permaculture_network/message/171 is a yahoonews group posting, what makes this reliable?
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 26 ? Altamont Pass Wind Farm, Coachella_Valley.  Sorry, couldn't resist :-)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've changed the "they work for you" reference to the original Hansard source. Richerman (talk) 09:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * NUAE is a german company name - what it stands for is not given anywhere - not in English anyway! I've changed the title of the ref to NUAE Geotextiles Ltd. News.


 * Rochdaleonline seems to be online news only, however the opening date is non-controversial and I've added a newspaper reference from two days earlier that says it will be officially opened on that date. Richerman (talk) 14:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Removed yahoo newsgroup and new enegy focus refs
 * Removed The Stringer ref and added missing publisher Richerman (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments by Mgm|(talk) -- 12:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "A protest group was formed to resist the proposals" You never mentioned proposals before. Shouldn't this read "A protest group was formed to resist the construction of the wind farm" or something similar that fits better in the flow?
 * "Visible from as far away as south Manchester, the wind farm was officially opened on 25 September 2008, after "years of controversy",[4] at a cost of £50 million." Contains too many commas. Bad prose.
 * "The underlying geology broadly belongs to the Lower Coal Measures and is a mixture of hard rock and soft shale" (missing word)
 * "spans across to" needs rewording.
 * The last bit of the history section had me confused. Are you sure we need exact quotes here below the bill quote?
 * "exacerbated", "subsidence" and "grout" are not the sort of word I would think the typical reader knows.

I did some minor editing of my own during this review.- Mgm|(talk) 12:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "proposals" changed to "proposed construction".
 * "Visible from as far away ..." rewritten.
 * Added missing word in "The underlying geology ...".
 * "spans across to" changed to "extends to".
 * Minor rewrite to avoid use of the word "exacerbated", grout and subsidence now linked.
 * --Malleus Fatuorum 13:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Support. All my comments were addressed. Karanacs (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Comments Karanacs (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It says that the turbines can be seen from south Manchester - how far away is that?
 * Is there any information about the habitat management plan that they were supposed to come up with?
 * The lead appears to contain information that is not in the body of the article (forgive me if I missed it) - that it spans 2 mi, also the comparison with the offshore wind farm
 * How wide is the moor? What percentage is the wind farm using?


 * Added distance from south Manchester.
 * Added the total area of the moor, and the area occupied by the wind farm.
 * --Malleus Fatuorum 21:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Moved information from lead to body of article Richerman (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I See that since my previous comment, a reference has been removed. Why was that? Also, you tend to fragment sentences quite often. "Visible from as far away as south Manchester, 15–20 miles (24–32 km) away, it is split between the Metropolitan Borough of Rochdale in northern Greater Manchester and the Borough of Rossendale in south-eastern Lancashire.[1][2]" is an example of such sentence construction. Of course variation is needed, but if possible try to start the subject, or at least have a clear subject in the first part. "Visible from as far away as south Manchester, 15–20 miles (24–32 km) away, " doesn't have a subject (or a verb for that matter). -- Mgm|(talk) 11:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure which reference you're referring to, but I removed some text along with a reference as the reliability of the source was questioned by Ealdgyth. I've fixed the sentence you mention and I'll have a look to see if I can find any more like it. Richerman (talk) 12:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I've dealt with the fragemented sentences now. Richerman (talk) 23:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments Seems very short of economic analysis of what is a business project after all. The two owners should be mentioned in the lead - what are the JV shares? What is the expected lifetime, and actual production figures? I know it's windy up there, but it doesn't blow all the time. There must be revenue projections, and given the movements in energy prices recently, some comment on how these might have changed would seem called for. Johnbod (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * OK but what do you mean by JV shares? Richerman (talk) 11:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What are their respective shares in the Joint Venture? Should be available online in the Annual Reports etc. Johnbod (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, United Utilities aren't mentioned any more on Peel holdings' website and it seems they pulled out of the project. I've added a line to that effect.Richerman (talk) 00:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added the useful life expectancy of 25 years, but the only online annual report is from 2002 and there is no mention in it of wind energy proposals. Richerman (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. Johnbod (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I think all the points have been addressed now, is the article ready for promotion to FA? Richerman (talk) 15:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If I read the articles correctly, the nameplate capacity of 65 whotsits, often mentioned, actually has a capacity factor of 27% (tucked away in the final table) - ie in the absence of a change in weather patterns of biblical proportions only 27% of the nameplate capacity is ever likely to be achieved. Nor do we know what figures are initial pre-operating projections and which actual. I don't know anything about the subject but the article doesn't explain these matters well & I suspect is not written with a depth of understanding of the issues. Johnbod (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think any of us new much about this stuff when we started but you learn as you go along - especially from other articles about the subject. I will put something in about the points you mention. Richerman (talk) 11:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added an explanation of the capacity factor with a pointer to the main article on the subject Wind power. Does that make it clearer? Richerman (talk) 19:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It won't be promoted with only one support declaration. While the individual comments might have been addressed, it might be best to figure out what other changes are needed for the other reviewers to change from "comments" to "support". Karanacs (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, it has two. :) –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 19:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't see yours right next to the strikeout. I think I need to clean my glasses ;)  Anyway, Sandy archives on Tuesday and Sunday, so this will likely be open all week. Karanacs (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not at all familiar with this process and I don't know what else I can do other than address the points that are raised. Should I ask those who have made the comments whether they have changed to support or would that be canvassing? Richerman (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As long as you don't specifically ask for supports, it is fine to notify reviewers that you've addressed their comments. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 19:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - With the changes, the page is completely aesthetically pleasing, reads well, and I didn't find anything "missing". I haven't seen any MoS problems with my last glance through. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Notes - 1. Two paragraphs for lead with slight expansion (one or two sentences). 2. Alternate some images. The first could start on the left. 3. Last part of "Construction" first paragraph (starting with "The weather constrained") could be split to form its own paragraph so it doesn't all flow together via the blockquote. 4. Reduce "see also" by introducing the wikilinks in the text. "Wind power in the United Kingdom" and "Wind power" definitely belong somewhere in the body of the text and in the lead (windfar is already there, so wind power may be unnecessary). 5. Last paragraph of "Geography" should have a few more sentences. 6. The same for the last paragraph of "Construction". I'm opposed to tiny one or two line paragraphs that seem to stick out and feel out of place. Not all of these are necessary, but they will help with the minor aspects. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've expanded the lead and the geography section, alternated the images, split the paragraphs as suggested, and got the "see also's" down to one, with the rest incorporated into the text. I've also removed the last paragraph break in Construction.Richerman (talk) 01:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The imagequote template is very strange on IE7; way off to the right of the page (can it switch to a regular blockquote?). Also, it's not necessary to WP:NBSP dates in citations; that must have been a lot of work.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, Imagequote is used when there's a left-aligned image that would interfere with the quote template. However, the image here is right-aligned, so I'm not sure why it's being used. I also switched the template to Imagequote2 so that the spacing is correct (Imagequote seems to be antiquated). I don't know why the functionality of imagequote can't be integrated into quote. Budding Journalist 02:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The image was at one time left-aligned, but it's now been right-aligned, so it was a hangover from that change. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * I'm not liking the way quotations are handled. Too many dull "so-and-so said, "Quote"", sometimes with little context. Moreover, perhaps this is a style issue, but I was taught that when introducing quotations with "said" or the like, a comma should precede the quotation. Thus, "Councillor Pilling said, "Our party is very...", not "Councillor Pilling said "Our party is very..." If the quotation is preceded by something such as "said that", the comma is not needed. Also: "was that "These applications are made under section 147..." should be either "was that "[t]hese applications..." or "was, "These applications...".
 * "In 2005 United Utilities" Lonely, one sentence paragraph. Also, sometimes a comma is used after temporal clauses ("In November 2008, the company") and other times, it's not (like here). Best to be consistent. Budding Journalist 02:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "un-recorded shallow coal mining" Why is un-recorded hyphenated? And what does "un-recorded" mean? Were people surreptitiously mining?
 * "what assessment she had made of whether the development of the Scout Moor Wind Farm would meet the provisions of the Commons Bill in respect of the protection of and public access to common land" What is the Commons Bill? Link? This seems to be an unnecessarily wordy sentence. -> "...Margaret Beckett, then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whether the development would meet the provisions of the Commons Bill regarding the protection of and public access to common land."
 * "It was reported in May 2007 that a meeting had been held" Why "it was reported"? Is there doubt about the meeting having been held? Who attended this meeting?
 * "The view of Catherine Pilling" Not a very artful transition. What is the connection of this quotation to this meeting? Did she say this after the meeting to the public? During it? The rest of this paragraph is just a list of quotations. Not representative of Wikipedia's best work here. "The Labour group leader was opposed to the plan saying " Who is this, and what is the meaning of "Labour group leader"? Leader of what? Budding Journalist 02:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Replies
 * "These applications ..." changed to "[t]hese applications.
 * The lonely one sentence paragraph beginning "In 2005 United Utilities ..." has been merged into the text.
 * Hyphenation of "unrecorded" has been removed. "Unrecorded" means that no records were maintained of where the mines were located.
 * "Margaret Beckett, then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ..." sentence rewritten as suggested.
 * The meeting did take place, attended by invited local councillors and developers. Clarified in the text.
 * "Labour group leader" means the leader of the UK Labour Party local councillors. Some rewriting done in that area to make that and the relationship between the meeting and the comments more explicit.
 * --Malleus Fatuorum 18:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks better. Still not wild about the way quotations are handled, but the meeting paragraph reads much better now and gives more context. Budding Journalist 02:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments—This is good and, after a little massaging, should be of FA standard. I've made a few copy-edits. Unsure why "years of controversy" is in quotes (see my comment about loosening up a little about quotemarking short bits of common text from sources, esp. where not contentious). The information in Note 3: can it be included at the end of the lead, or perhaps in the body of the article instead? Can you watch your use of "which"—see my changes in two places to clarify its referent. Two quotes from refs that you've wound into the main prose just ahead of the ref numeral are a little forced; I can see that you want to verify that these were the actual words in the source, but perhaps it's good enough to drop the quotes from the single last word here: The geological diversity of Scout Moor, which weathers at different rates, has given it a landscape of "steep escarpments separated by sloping shelves", although the main dome of the moor is flat and "rounded".[4] No one will accuse you of plagiarism. Also, ref [4] appears here in four successive sentences; these are hardly contentious statements, so the earlier ones could be rationed. Slightly overlinked. I'll do some more work on it later. [Disclosure: I know Malleus well on WP.] Tony   (talk)  12:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Is a 1991 travel guide a good source for a quotation on geology in an FAC article. And is it worth citing  twice in same short paragraph, as it is in the first paragraph under "Geology"? (See: "steep escarpments separated by sloping shelves"  which is a quote from )  I know the author is "one of the best know guidebook writers in the north" (from the book's back cover), but I am wondering if WP:RS allows guidebooks for geological citations?
 * The information referenced by the guide is hardly contentious, I don't see a problem with using it as a source in this case. Nev1 (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Response My complaint is directed at setting a precedent for using a travel guide as a geological reference in an FAC. (In WP:RS it is suggested such sources are not the best.) Surely a legitimate geological source can be found. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 16:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, reference 12 is piped with a link to this article: Chetham Society 1856. Quotes from it are cited four times in one short paragraph,  in the first paragraph under "History".  Is there not a rule against an article linking to itself?
 * The Harvard template automatically links to the bibliography section, this has never held back FACs before and I don't believe it's over linking. It's purpose, especially in articles with longer bibliographies, is to take the user straight to the relevant book in the bibliography. Nev1 (talk) 12:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Response - It is hard for me to accept that the Harvard template automatically pipes, not to the society that published the quotes, Chetham Society 1856, but to this article, Scout Moor Wind Farm at FAC. That is due to piping and that should be fixed. It is a principle that an article should not contain links to itself.  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 16:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Where does it say this? It wouldn't take much to change it from the template to another format, as this article only uses it twice, but I'm concerned that this issue may needlessly hinder other FACs. Nev1 (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The templates have been removed. Nev1 (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think are too many quotations for such a short article (disregarding the sources). Is this material such that the editor cannot use original wording? It is not like quoting a famous author or featuring compelling prose that could justify using quotations. The quotations seem to be facts that could be stated without using quotations.
 * Quotes only make up a small proportion of the article. In the instance of the etymology, quotations allow precision, rephrasing it might lead to accidental inaccuracies. Also, quoting people's opinions later in the article ensures that their meaning is fully conveyed. Nev1 (talk) 13:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Reponse - Quotes make up an unnecessary part of the article, especially when quotes are not people's opinions that cannot be summarized in an encyclopedic style (which is the job of writers of an encyclopedia, after all. (If the editor thinks "rephrasing it might lead to accidental inaccuracies", then the editor has no belief that an encyclopedia can be written in original prose.) User talk:BuddingJournalist makes the same complaint above: "I'm not liking the way quotations are handled. Too many dull "so-and-so said, "Quote"", sometimes with little context. Moreover, perhaps this is a style issue, but I was taught that when introducing quotations with "said" or the like, a comma should precede the quotation." Although some of his complaints were address, he was not completely satisfied. Example: (first para under "History", using the piped redirect to this article)
 * "In England, scout hills 'are long ridges of rock, so called from the Anglo-Saxon Sceotan, as being shot out, horizontally or nearly so, to a great length'. Scout is a corruption of the Old English 'sceot', meaning 'shot' or 'to shoot', this suggests Anglo-Saxon settlement in the locality at a very ancient time. Kinder Scout in Derbyshire shares this etymology. The village of Shuttleworth, to the immediate west of Scout Moor, derives its name from Sceot-hulls-worth, meaning 'dwelling-place by the Scout hills'."


 * This is four short sentences, each on referenced by the same source. Also, the manner in which the quotes is used is confusing, as it is not clear if some words is quoted because it is someone else's wording, or because it is a word being used as a word quote-use justification. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 16:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it not over using a reference to cite the same source four times in a row in a short paragraph, as Chetham Society 1856 is in the first paragraph under "History", especially with no intervening citations?  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 04:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Over referencing? I didn't think such a thing was possible. Using the reference more than once in succession has no detrimental effect and reinforces that all the information came from the same source. Also, if someone were to introduce new information into the paragraph (with a source), it might give the false impression that the new source references all the information before it. Nev1 (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Response - Yes, there is such a thing as over referencing. For example, I have seen this raised as a legitimate complaint by Tony in the past. Referencing each sentence in a paragraph to the same source is over referencing. See the first paragraph under "History" quoted above. Footnotes are considered distracting to the reader, so using them unnecessarily is not desirable. Your reasoning would require a footnote after every sentence. &mdash;[[User:Mattisse| Mattisse  (Talk) 16:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm of the inclination of Nev1 too - I'd much rather see "over" referencing than have any kind of confusion of where a statement or factoid came from. Yes it can seem like overkill, but I don't think it's a bad thing for WP or our readers in this case or others. Indeed if this was an academic paper being submitted for assessment one wouldn't be marked down at all, quite the contrary. --Jza84 | Talk  17:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Plus, in this case a reference is required after every quotation. Nev1 (talk) 12:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Response - Of course a reference is required after every quotation. The question is, why are there so many quotations that are not anyone's opinion and could be rephrased in the editor's own words. Is that not what writing an article for an encyclopedia about? Otherwise, writing an article for Wikipedia would just be a question of assembling quotations and sources.
 * Please see Tony's comments above, whose complaints I have reiterated:
 * "Two quotes from refs that you've wound into the main prose just ahead of the ref numeral are a little forced; I can see that you want to verify that these were the actual words in the source, but perhaps it's good enough to drop the quotes from the single last word here: The geological diversity of Scout Moor, which weathers at different rates, has given it a landscape of "steep escarpments separated by sloping shelves", although the main dome of the moor is flat and "rounded".[4] No one will accuse you of plagiarism. Also, ref [4] appears here in four successive sentences; these are hardly contentious statements, so the earlier ones could be rationed."

&mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 16:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The paragraph has been reworked and now only uses the same reference twice. I hope this is acceptable. Nev1 (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.