Wikipedia:Featured article review/Renewable energy in Scotland/archive1


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

The article was kept by DrKay via FACBot (talk) 9:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC).

Renewable energy in Scotland

 * Notified: SAMurrai, Ben MacDui, WikiProject Energy, WikiProject Climate change, WikiProject Scotland, talk page 15-04-2020

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article is severely out of date. Because developments in renewable energy are very fast, even the structure of the article needs a complete overhaul. Just a few out of many examples: Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Solar PV is only described under the section heading of microsystems, whereas this is a mainstream technology for electricity production even in Scotland.
 * The recent events section stops in 2014.
 * Wind energy is now massive in Scotland, but gets equal attention to smaller contributions.
 * The recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fourth Assessment Report has further increased the profile of the issue. (two major IPCC reports have come out since).
 * Also some serious citation issues, as well. We've got bits of uncited content sprinkled in various areas.  There's a book cited without specific page numbers given.  There are multiple cites to the home page of Scottish Renewables, and as the homepage is frequently updated, that (out-of-date) information is no longer supported by the citation.  There's a bare URL in the references.  Ref 45 is an uncited footnote, not a reference.  A sampling of online references finds multiple dead links.  Many of the references are old enough they seem to be outdated.  So there's much work needed here. Hog Farm Bacon 18:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for alerting me - I can't fault your analysis. It was one of my first FAs and I quickly discovered that keeping a topic like this up-to-date is a fair amount of work. I kept at it for a few years but as the subject became higher and higher profile (which is good news) I became less involved in the industry than once I was and the pressure of life and work has also led to me being much less active as an editor herein. Can you give me a timetable for 'moving the article to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list' (per my talk page). It's not out of the question that I will find the time over Xmas to do a revamp and it would be good to keep the FA star for COP 26 - to be held in Glasgow - if possible.  Ben   Mac  Dui  16:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's great to hear you might have time I'm relatively new here, but I think waiting till Christmas is definitely okay. I might do some small updates in the mean time. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Time is usually granted, and considering my past experience with Ben MacDui, I recommend the wait. It is possible the Coords would put the FAR on hold (meaning they sometimes remove it from the page with a calendar note to bring it back ... in six weeks in this case). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we'll leave it live in case someone else is interested in helping out, but it shouldn't be a problem to extend the timeframe. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

are you still planning to work on this? (Ben MacDui has not edited since 8 December.) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hoping to start today or tomorrow. Ben   Mac  Dui  10:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well that's a start at least. Half of the 'Toolbox' links are not working at present for some reason and manually checking ref links would be a tedious business so that may be it for today. However, there's not much point in tarting up the refs if the content is not close enough to being up to the mark. Comments welcome. Ben   Mac  Dui  13:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Great! Improved structure, and many more parts of the article are now up-to-date. I think there still a few parts of the article that will need to be rewritten significantly, removed, because the citations are too old. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit surprised that there was a small loans in employment found by that consultancy. Typically, wind energy causes an increase in employment. More recent sources available?
 * Wind power now has as much space as wave power, even though it is significantly larger. This warrants expansion and separate subsection for offshore and onshore wind.
 * The first source of tidal power is from 1981.
 * For geothermal, I assume the subsidy scheme has changed since 2007? (The 4000 pounds)
 * Most of the sources in micro systems are too old to be used. I don't think microsystem is a big topic any more, so wouldn't mind if it gets deleted entirely.
 * Grid management should probably mention the European super grid. I know the European Green Deal has made this more ambituous, but not sure if plans for Scotland have been updated. The Brexit deal includes collaboration in terms of energy.
 * Incineration is typically seen are bio-energy. Bio-energy section already quite long, so if merged, you may want to delete/condense some.
 * Local vs national concerns might be better renamed as politics. It could include the stances of different Scottish parties on the topic.
 * The first paragraph of that section has essay-style, and I don't quite see the relevance. Remove?
 * I'm missing Nicola Sturgeon and current support.
 * The relation between independence and energy is interesting in Scotland. There are multiple papers on the topic, such as https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/abs/10.3366/elr.2016.0374?journalCode=elr. It states renewable energy and oil were really important in the 2014 referendum.
 * If national vs local concerns is renamed politics, the sentence on the COP would fit in. Doesn't quite fit at current location
 * How many see-also's are needed?
 * The article focuses on potential over installed/planned capacity. I think that's not what current sources emphasize, now that the technologies have matured and installations have increased. A shift in focus may be necessary, for instance in the caption of the lede graphic. Femke Nijsse (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Please ping me for a re-visit when Femke's concerns are addressed. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

CMD (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Drive-by comments
 * The WP:LEAD should be checked to ensure it is a summary of the article. There are a few citations only present in the lead, suggesting information only present in the lead. Quick spotchecks suggest overall capacity and exporting are lead-only at least, but it should be examined more thoroughly. CMD (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What is the "Main references" section meant to be?
 * The blueish colour in the "Electricity generated by source" legend is different to the colour of the bars for me. Is that the case for you?
 * Something is wonky; perhaps would have time for an accessibility and color check.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm really short of time right now, but the colour mismatch is because the bars have transparency applied, but the legend doesn't. It's a bug in the Graph:Chart extension. I've reduced the transparency in the blue bars to make them render nearer to the colour in the legend as a work-around for now. I'll try to do a proper accessibility check as soon as I can make some time again. --RexxS (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Femke Nijsse wrote: Great! Improved structure, and many more parts of the article are now up-to-date. I think there still a few parts of the article that will need to be rewritten significantly, removed, because the citations are too old.
 * BMD reply
 * I'm a bit surprised that there was a small loans in employment found by that consultancy. Typically, wind energy causes an increase in employment. More recent sources available?
 * >I just removed it.
 * Wind power now has as much space as wave power, even though it is significantly larger. This warrants expansion and separate subsection for offshore and onshore wind.
 * >Done - expanding wind power further would I think just involve listing yet more sites and there is a 'main article' about this topic.
 * The first source of tidal power is from 1981.
 * >This was not so long ago for some of us! Besides, it is referencing past events.
 * For geothermal, I assume the subsidy scheme has changed since 2007? (The 4000 pounds)
 * >Replaced by the CARES system, (which is regretably bureaucratic).
 * Most of the sources in micro systems are too old to be used. I don't think microsystem is a big topic any more, so wouldn't mind if it gets deleted entirely.
 * >I am not of the view that sources from 2007 are "too old" if the information is still accurate, but I agree that the commercial scale of wind in particular has rendered this largely redundant so I have binned it (although the remarkable Eigg has been saved for the wind section).
 * Grid management should probably mention the European super grid. I know the European Green Deal has made this more ambituous, but not sure if plans for Scotland have been updated. The Brexit deal includes collaboration in terms of energy.
 * > I am not aware of any active schemes. I read that "Plans for a subsea renewable energy transmission cable between Scotland and Norway have been put on hold by the government in Oslo." No doubt in the merry land of Brexit all kinds of new collaboration will emerge, although I can't see the UK supporting such a scheme myself.
 * Incineration is typically seen are bio-energy. Bio-energy section already quite long, so if merged, you may want to delete/condense some.
 * >Attempted.
 * Local vs national concerns might be better renamed as politics. It could include the stances of different Scottish parties on the topic.
 * > I don't think so. The 'local vs national concerns' issue is a function of geography and an urban vs rural issue rather than party political as such - but see below.
 * The first paragraph of that section has essay-style, and I don't quite see the relevance. Remove?
 * >I fear you may never have been to the Hebrides. The whole point of this is that the greatest sources of energy are in places that are challenging to live in from climate and marine perspectives. Nonetheless I have relegated Murray's comments to a note.
 * I'm missing Nicola Sturgeon and current support.
 * >I am a bit reluctant to draw the keyboard warriors into the article but I have added a short political parties section.
 * The relation between independence and energy is interesting in Scotland. There are multiple papers on the topic, such as https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/abs/10.3366/elr.2016.0374?journalCode=elr. It states renewable energy and oil were really important in the 2014 referendum.
 * >Included in the above.
 * If national vs local concerns is renamed politics, the sentence on the COP would fit in. Doesn't quite fit at current location
 * >Included in the above.
 * How many see-also's are needed?
 * >I removed a few that are in the templates at the bottom of the page.
 * The article focuses on potential over installed/planned capacity. I think that's not what current sources emphasize, now that the technologies have matured and installations have increased. A shift in focus may be necessary, for instance in the caption of the lede graphic. Femke Nijsse (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * >I take the point - this is probably because recent sources tend to replace coverage of the strategic initiative with comments about the short term tactics as well as being a function of the change from 'potential' to 'installed capacity'. The image has been moved and there are various text changes.


 * Chipmunkdavis wrote:Drive-by comments
 * The WP:LEAD should be checked to ensure it is a summary of the article. There are a few citations only present in the lead, suggesting information only present in the lead. Quick spotchecks suggest overall capacity and exporting are lead-only at least, but it should be examined more thoroughly. CMD (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * >No kidding - hopefully now fixed.
 * What is the "Main references" section meant to be?
 * >Removed.

There are a few references from books that don't have pages identified. In two cases I think I know where the volumes are, in at least one (Emma Wood) I don't. Arguably the Monbiot ref in the lead is acceptable as this is the topic of the entire book. I hope to ferret out what I have later today - although it may be next year.... Ben  Mac  Dui  12:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Additional from B. Mac.


 * Chidgk1 wrote: Good to see this important subject being updated. Some suggestions:


 * Apparently bold is not mandatory for the subject. First sentence needs to be punchier. Maybe something like: "Renewable energy in Scotland is mainly offshore wind power?" (if that is true)
 * > It isn’t true. See Summary of Scotland's resource potential
 * I agree. The word issue can be a bit negative. Two alternatives:
 *  Renewable energy in Scotland reached x% of total energy consumption in year X. This also helps shift the focus away from electricity.
 * The EU sentence is also more catchy: Renewable energy plays an important and growing role in the energy system of Scotland.


 * Lead could emphasize that we are talking about energy not just electricity, and say what proportion of energy is renewable now compared to 2030 target mentioned. Maybe possible to have graph in body showing all energy sources so we can see how renewables compare oil, gas etc


 * > Actually, this is fascinating. When the article first appeared one drive-by commentator wondered whether the topic was worth bothering with at all, so commencing the article with a statement that “this is important” rather than a string of statistics seem(ed)s to me to be far more apposite. Having said I see that it has been changed already and I am not going to grumble if you prefer it that way – although it is also a hostage to changing data and I presume enthusiasts for this approach will be kind enough to provide updates in future.


 * Add a section on "energy storage" and flexible generation - especially longer term e.g. windless weeks
 * >There is a ‘Grid management section’. There is no question at all that battery technology is going to be a major focus in coming years but at present it’s not really a major issue.
 * >>Ah OK but at the moment that section does not seem to give an overview. For example I understand that for the UK as a whole at the moment the flexibility is mostly provided by natural gas - for example gas-fired power stations ramp up when there is very little wind. But I don't know for Scotland whether the current flexibility is provided in the same way or some other way - for example energy import and export with England. Perhaps it is somewhere in the article and I missed it. Also for the UK as a whole I understand a lot of energy is stored in the natural gas pipelines at the moment - so if that is also true of Scotland it could be mentioned together with how that amount of storage (likely too much for batteries) might be done in future. I see you have info about pumped storage in the hydro section but it seems that will not be enough? Or is that out of date? Chidgk1 (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Mention demand management e.g. electric car charge timing
 * > I am not aware of anything specific to Scotland that (as yet) is especially noteworthy but I added a tidbit about Sunamp (but note that this is about renewable energy use rather than production – as this becomes mainstreamed it may become necessary to split these topics out – see also below re transport links to islands.)
 * >>Ah I had never heard of those "heat storage batteries". If that is the same as thermal battery perhaps that article could be linked


 * More about using renewable energy to heat homes
 * > I removed this at the suggestion of Femke Nijsse.
 * >> The UKCCC says (in the doc linked below) the Scottish govt should "Set out a coherent strategy for the future of low-carbon heat and energy efficiency in Scotland's homes and other buildings." Although the strategy will obviously cover more than renewable energy I think the arguments (for example for and against heat pumps) should be discussed more here. Because the article title is "Renewable energy in Scotland" not limited to "Renewable energy generation in Scotland" but also it should cover the use of renewable energy a bit more don't you think? Alternatively it could be renamed to "Renewable energy generation in Scotland" which matches the short description. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * it's a difficult one. I'd say that an article on renewable energy should very succintly summarise complementary technologies. I feel that when hydrogen is mentioned, electrification should be mentioned as well. The article now only mentions hydrogen vehicles, which are significantly less common than electric vehicles. Renewable energy in heat and transport are important topics. This should get less weight than the power sector, as there is less renewable energy in those sectors as of yet, but the article is probably slanted a bit too much towards power. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Integrate some "see also" links into body of text e.g. NorthConnect (or maybe https://www.shetnews.co.uk/2020/09/28/norway-to-shetland-interconnector-still-being-considered/ )
 * >Not according to this from March 2020.
 * >I am not sure I understand why this section is receiving so much attention. I have just removed all the local ones. (This is post-Brexit gallows humour btw.)


 * Discuss how much electricity (and maybe hydrogen) links to rest of UK will help UK as a whole achieve net zero
 * >Mentioned in the “realisation section, para starting: “In 2018, Scotland exported over 28% of electricity generation…”. I added “to the rUK” just to make it clear. Hydrogen is (as yet) irrelevant at this scale.


 * Remove "peak oil" as not now relevant
 * >I read at Peak oil that current estimates of the date of peak oil “range from 2019 to the 2040s” so I don’t see how the idea can be considered not now relevant. It was and is a major driving force of public policy.


 * A bit more on transport links to and between islands - electric planes?
 * >There are no passenger, commercial or other links in Scotland using electric planes (although there has been some coverage of amusing ideas to increase carbon emissions by attracting people to go to Orkney to then experience the world's shortest scheduled flight using an electric flying machine.) Caledonian MacBrayne have two or three diesel powered ferries supplemented with lithium-ion batteries. This is mentioned at Sustainable development in Scotland and in my view the topic is more relevant to that article.


 * Add "current annual energy" column to summary table
 * >Don’t understand.
 * >>I was thinking the actual energy generated by each tech in a particular year. But on second thoughts perhaps that would be too much work to keep up to date in future. And I have now read the note beneath the table and I see that the potential energy is actually a quick estimate of what I was asking for.


 * Is offshore wind potential really only 25GW? floating platforms included?
 * > The numbers in the article are very similar to those used here. As an aside, it’s fascinating to see how so much of the recent information is monetised – i.e. phrased as ‘worth £x billion’ or ‘y 000 jobs’ rather than expressed in potential energy. It’s a long way from Twidell’s conference in 1981.


 * Condense bioenergy section and expand offshore wind section
 * >Expand in what way? Listing yet more wind farms already in the main article would not increase interest or readability.


 * Brief mention of politics and economics of closing down (or converting to CCS/blue hydrogen) natural gas electricity and heating
 * > CCS: the political history is of Holyrood vs Westminster brickbat chucking but the end result is (so far) no action. The economics are essentially a UK matter. See ‘Carbon sequestration; section for the current situation.
 * > I added a sentence about the recent policy announcement – although we have been waiting on the ‘hydrogen economy’ since the 1980s and I am not holding my breath.


 * More from https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/reducing-emissions-in-scotland-2020-progress-report-to-parliament/
 * >This is essentially about “Reducing emissions” rather than renewable energy production – and although they are linked, again think this should be a source for ‘Sustainable development in Scotland’ rather than here.

Chidgk1 (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * >Replies by your humble servant, Ben   Mac  Dui  10:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * More from Femke
 * on biodiesel, the article states " interest is growing in the subject". I can't believe this is still true; bio-energy has fallen a bit out of fashion. Anyway, a modern sources needed for a statement like this entire paragraph (or can be put in the past tense)
 * 'There are encouraging developments', with a citation from 2007.
 * It has been alleged that UK transmission pricing structures are weighted against the development of renewables in Scotland. Links to 2006 sources. Still true? Or past tense?
 * Renewable Energy Association are also leading the way towards the establishment of a digestate standard. I assume there is a standard now? I have the plans been abandoned?
 * Is there a reason to use the word annum instead of year, or utilise instead of use?
 * 'while the smaller EPR Westfield power plant in Fife produces 9.8 MW of output using chicken litter as fuel'. As capacity still the same? Does this thing even still exist?
 * The information about bio capacity is probably also dated. I'm not familiar with the term, and it might not be something scientist use any more.
 * The developed world's economy is very dependent on inexpensive 'point-source' fossil fuels implies that fossil fuels are cheaper than renewables, which isn't true anymore. I'm assuming solar hasn't yet become cheaper in Scotland, but unsure when surely has.

I am now back at work - will reply at the weekend. Ben  Mac  Dui  08:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Replies
 * on biodiesel, the article states " interest is growing in the subject". I can't believe this is still true; bio-energy has fallen a bit out of fashion. Anyway, a modern sources needed for a statement like this entire paragraph (or can be put in the past tense)
 * >>I removed this dated statement. Westray's rather fun biodiesel project seems to have ended a few years ago - at least I can't see anything obvious beyond about 2012 so I put it in the past tense.
 * 'There are encouraging developments', with a citation from 2007.
 * >>I amended the wording.
 * It has been alleged that UK transmission pricing structures are weighted against the development of renewables in Scotland. Links to 2006 sources. Still true? Or past tense?
 * >>Very much an ongoing grumble. See here in 2017 or suggested "reform the punitive transmission charging regime" in 2019.
 * Renewable Energy Association are also leading the way towards the establishment of a digestate standard. I assume there is a standard now? I have the plans been abandoned?
 * >>SEPA now have a standard in place. Amended.
 * Is there a reason to use the word annum instead of year, or utilise instead of use?
 * >>They are perfectly good words - what would the reasons be to change them?
 * 'while the smaller EPR Westfield power plant in Fife produces 9.8 MW of output using chicken litter as fuel'. As capacity still the same? Does this thing even still exist?
 * >> Surpringly difficult to find out actually. It seems to have been mothballed in 2011 and then there was a proposal to revieve it 2017 and now Brockwell have permission to re-build some kind of waste to energy plant either nearby or on the same site. I've removed it.
 * The information about bio capacity is probably also dated. I'm not familiar with the term, and it might not be something scientist use any more.
 * >>Biocapacity is used in ecological footprint studies and although these much more complex analyses have received much less attention than the simpler and more immediately concerning carbon footprint studies that does not make them less important. See for example the front page of one of the quoted sources or Chambers (2004) where the word is repeated frequently or indeed Ecological footprint. I have added a better link direct to Biocapacity. Unless someone has done a revised study with different methodology the outcomes are unlikely to have changed much.
 * The developed world's economy is very dependent on inexpensive 'point-source' fossil fuels implies that fossil fuels are cheaper than renewables, which isn't true anymore. I'm assuming solar hasn't yet become cheaper in Scotland, but unsure when surely has.
 * >> Removed inexpensive.
 * it's a difficult one. I'd say that an article on renewable energy should very succintly summarise complementary technologies. I feel that when hydrogen is mentioned, electrification should be mentioned as well. The article now only mentions hydrogen vehicles, which are significantly less common than electric vehicles. Renewable energy in heat and transport are important topics. This should get less weight than the power sector, as there is less renewable energy in those sectors as of yet, but the article is probably slanted a bit too much towards power.
 * >>I hope you'll forgive me if I say that yes it is difficult - and it's also a little confusing to be asked to remove a section that included remarks about '"small-scale 'wind2heat' projects", "air source heat pumps" and waste heat and then be asked to say more about "renewable energy in heat". Tbh I am not at all sure what is being asked for. For example, it is perfectly true that electric cars are going mainstream whereas hydrogen is still essentially experimental. On the other hand, as far as I am aware, other than garages retailing e-vehicles I don't know of a specifically Scottish angle here, whereas there very much is in the context of hydrogen, even it still remains unclear how, when and if it can be mainstreamed. Furthemore, not all e-vehicles are powered by renewable sources, depending on who the energy supplier is. I wonder if any statistics about this exist. Maybe I could use something from here. I'll need to think about this.
 * I trust your judgement :).


 * >>Thanks - I have added a new para about the relationship of demand management and EVs.

Ben  Mac  Dui  16:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry, but my stress levels have been a bit too high recently, so I'm working towards a one or two month wiki break, and won't be reviewing this article further. Loads of progress made so far, and I'm sure other people can help bring this article back to FA status. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * >>Understood and hope you recover soon. Ben   Mac  Dui  11:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

as Femke is not planning to return can I ask you (and anyone else above) to say whether or not you have any further concerns? Ben  Mac  Dui  16:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry I don't have the energy to look at this any more. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think I have the same grasp of the issue as some here, but I can provide some comment further comments. I've read the rest of the article but don't have any specific points right now. The general points touched upon with the specific examples above could probably be applied to other areas of the article. I come away with a similar impression to above of a bit of datedness and some areas where the general information lack sources. That said, your comments above about how difficult it is to keep this article up to date feel quite justified, and I also come away with the impression of a breadth of scope supported through specific detailed examples. CMD (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * More comments
 * The lead feels disjointed, without a clear order or structure. I think some shuffling may solve the issue, but perhaps you may have more ideas on how to summarise the article since you have been back into it.
 * Before having a section on "Realisation of the potential", it might be good to have a section on the potential. There is a bit of this in the first paragraph, and there is the table at the bottom which appears to have some sources that could also be added. There is space for a bit more explanation on where the potential for the various forms of energy production comes from.
 * Such a Potential section could also introduce a summary of Scotland's energy and electricity mixes at whatever the best baseline is (2006 from the article?). That provides good context to see the shifts within the mix. Perhaps an explanation on how the grid functions (reach of the National Grid, other smaller grids in Scotland, interconnectors within the grid, import/export of electricity).
 * Comparisons within the EU should be past tense (not just because of Brexit, the EU's expansion may also have altered percentages).
 * Placing the Realisation section in chronological order makes sense, and is mostly done here, but it does swing back and forth a bit. Relating I think to comments above about datedness, the "20 GW of renewable energy projects in the pipeline" part comes from a 2012 source. It does feel like there is more missing, for example the UK has legislated for net-zero emissions, surely there is some Scottish component to this and/or complementary or similar plans by the Scottish government? A later source says Scot Gov has a plan for "100% of electricity and 11% of all heat in Scotland being generated through renewable energy sources by 2020", for example, although this too is out of date now.
 * The bar graphs at the bottom of the article could be used to illustrate the Realisation section.
 * The first paragraph of Hydropower seems dated and some parts are unsourced.
 * The scottishrenewables url in the second paragraph is out of date. It also links to its own sources, which may be preferable. Much of the rest of the paragraph doesn't appear to be sourced, unless it's in the book? The book source needs page numbers.
 * The remaining hydro capacity source is from 2010, is this up to date? What happened to Knoydart and Kingussie?
 * Perhaps make pumped storage its own paragraph?
 * In general throughout the article there is an overuse of "in Scotland", which should be understandable from context.
 * The parts sourced to "Scottish wind power output breaks 100% output milestone" appear to be a straight up copy paste.
 * The explanation of what Tidal Power is seems mostly unsourced.
 * Regarding the sectoral section order, I can't see a pattern. Might it be best to go from the highest producer of power (wind) to the lowest?
 * It seems highly undue that almost half of the Solar energy section is devoted to a road energy system that exists in a car park.

Thanks for this. I am pretty real-world busy right now - I will respond asap. Ben  Mac  Dui  17:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am about half way through the above now but Monday looms again. With any luck I'll have managed most of it during the coming week. Ben   Mac  Dui  16:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Reply to More comments from Chipmunkdavis


 * The lead feels disjointed, without a clear order or structure. I think some shuffling may solve the issue, but perhaps you may have more ideas on how to summarise the article since you have been back into it.
 * >I have tweaked it a bit and the 'realisation' section. (It's getting hard to see the wood for the trees now and if I were planning to submit this to FAC I'd probably let it sit for a few weeks and then come back.)
 * Before having a section on "Realisation of the potential", it might be good to have a section on the potential. There is a bit of this in the first paragraph, and there is the table at the bottom which appears to have some sources that could also be added. There is space for a bit more explanation on where the potential for the various forms of energy production comes from.
 * >I moved the table up - which I thought would be easy but fixing the notes etc took about 30 minutes!
 * Such a Potential section could also introduce a summary of Scotland's energy and electricity mixes at whatever the best baseline is (2006 from the article?). That provides good context to see the shifts within the mix. Perhaps an explanation on how the grid functions (reach of the National Grid, other smaller grids in Scotland, interconnectors within the grid, import/export of electricity).
 * > There is an 'Electricity generated by source' graph below. Creating a whole new article about the main grid in Scotland is beyond my resources I'm afraid. We do have National Grid (Great Britain).
 * Comparisons within the EU should be past tense (not just because of Brexit, the EU's expansion may also have altered percentages).
 * >Easy to get stats for renewables and the quoted figures are equivalent to the precentages for the whole of Europe. Harder to get information about fossil fuels. theglobaleconomy.com thinks UK reserves of oil are 2.2 billion barrels but the BBC has an article suggesting its 20 billion. A fair few sources discuss the topic in terms of monetary value which is not very helpful. I made this less specific.
 * Placing the Realisation section in chronological order makes sense, and is mostly done here, but it does swing back and forth a bit. Relating I think to comments above about datedness, the "20 GW of renewable energy projects in the pipeline" part comes from a 2012 source.
 * >Fixed.
 * It does feel like there is more missing, for example the UK has legislated for net-zero emissions, surely there is some Scottish component to this and/or complementary or similar plans by the Scottish government? A later source says Scot Gov has a plan for "100% of electricity and 11% of all heat in Scotland being generated through renewable energy sources by 2020", for example, although this too is out of date now.
 * >The article stated "The Scottish Government's energy plan calls for 100% of electricity consumption to be generated through renewable sources by 2020, and 50% of total energy consumption (including transportation) by 2030" and there is a whole section about promoting renewables and the political landscape. I have tweaked these entries a bit.
 * The bar graphs at the bottom of the article could be used to illustrate the Realisation section.
 * >Good idea - done.
 * The first paragraph of Hydropower seems dated and some parts are unsourced.
 * >It's a figure for potential so it won't change much - of the curent installed capacity Scotland has 1.653/1.873 GW which is 88.2%. Power from the Glens/Neart nan Gleann source added.
 * The scottishrenewables url in the second paragraph is out of date. It also links to its own sources, which may be preferable.
 * >The link was Ok but I have tweaked the ref and the stat.
 * Much of the rest of the paragraph doesn't appear to be sourced, unless it's in the book? The book source needs page numbers.
 * >Power from the Glens sources added. I don't have access to the book anymore. The book source is now simply to confirm that Wood is indeed "the author of a study of these pioneers".
 * The remaining hydro capacity source is from 2010, is this up to date?
 * > If there has been a more recent evaluation I have not seen it.
 * What happened to Knoydart and Kingussie?
 * > Kingussie was built circa 2011. Knoydart is quite an old system and is still with us.
 * Perhaps make pumped storage its own paragraph?
 * >Done
 * In general throughout the article there is an overuse of "in Scotland", which should be understandable from context.
 * >Done
 * The parts sourced to "Scottish wind power output breaks 100% output milestone" appear to be a straight up copy paste.
 * >Well spotted and fixed.
 * The explanation of what Tidal Power is seems mostly unsourced.
 * >Sources added. (I wonder if it is possible that 13 years ago, when the article was promoted that we were more inclined to view unsourced statements of the obvious in a sympathetic light.)
 * Regarding the sectoral section order, I can't see a pattern. Might it be best to go from the highest producer of power (wind) to the lowest?
 * >The order is - oldest established, largest of more recent schmes, then the two systems that have very signficnat potential then the systems with least potential. To put it another way, it's past, present, future plus smaller scale. Given that hydro pre-dates the other technologies by several decades it makes sense to me that it is first.
 * It seems highly undue that almost half of the Solar energy section is devoted to a road energy system that exists in a car park.
 * >I have removed it. I fear the company are no longer in that rather speculative business. Ben   Mac  Dui  13:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, sorry for this late response. To clarify my point on the grid, I'm not suggesting a whole article, but just perhaps a single setence in the Potential section, something like "Most electricity in Scotland is carried through the National Grid, with Scotland's renewable mix thus affecting the electricity production of Great Britain as a whole" or similar. This would both put the energy usage in context (Scottish wind energy could power something elsewhere easily) and add context to smaller mentions of various grids and of sending electricity to the rest of the UK that are already included throughout the rest of the article.
 * I've copied some text from the lead into the body. The first sentence mentions a report not mentioned in the body, but a separate 2005 report is mentioned, and the topic is similar. One point remaining is that the lead says "Renewables produced 21% of Scotland's energy in 2018", while the body uses a different source and says 21% was in 2019.
 * Other than that, thanks again for answering and/or addressing my comments, and well done on building and maintaining the only Renewable energy in X article to reach GA/FA. CMD (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I will check the above out asap - hopefully this weekend. Ben   Mac  Dui  16:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Seems weird to start with "Realisation of the potential" without first having a section explaining what the potential is to start with. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * >The first para refers to the potential and table illustrating this is at the start of the section. Ben  Mac  Dui  11:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

 further comments Femke Amazing work so far. Some additional comments about the lead:
 * issue is, among other things, synonymous for problem, and feels too negative for me so prominently in the lead.
 * come to the fore is probably too difficult for the target audience.
 * Second sentence second paragraph has over citation. Surely, three citations are enough?
 * Merge second and third paragraph?
 * are also encouraging the use of various biofuels not sure why this is highlighted here.
 * Although the finances of many projects remain either speculative or dependent on market incentives, it is probable that there has been a significant, and in all likelihood long-term change, in the underpinning economics -> definitely too negative considering current conditions.
 * There is also an emerging political debate -> remove the word emerging, this debate is now old. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

replies to further comments by Femke Welcome back to the fray.
 * issue is, among other things, synonymous for problem, and feels too negative for me so prominently in the lead.
 * > I am not sure I agree but I have changed this to 'topic'.
 * come to the fore is probably too difficult for the target audience.
 * > I am hoping our target audience are slightly smarter and better read than you seem to think! If you have a more inclusive phrase by all means tweak this.
 * Second sentence second paragraph has over citation. Surely, three citations are enough?
 * >Fixed.
 * Merge second and third paragraph?
 * >Done.
 * are also encouraging the use of various biofuels not sure why this is highlighted here.
 * > When I was younger (so much younger than today) I was taught that one had to include a mention of every section in the article in the lead and this may be a rather clumsy way of doing this. If you can suggest an alternative I'd be grateful.
 * I've put it together with other sources in decreasing order of capacity. Does that work? Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That works, although I tweaked the order per the table. Ben   Mac  Dui  13:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Although the finances of many projects remain either speculative or dependent on market incentives, it is probable that there has been a significant, and in all likelihood long-term change, in the underpinning economics -> definitely too negative considering current conditions.
 * > I understand what you mean, although as it is only a matter of days since the 45th President of the US stood down and here in dear old Brittannia the UK government is opening coal mines I am not at all sure the global picture is especially rosy. Nonetheless I have tweaked this and added a reference - Martin Valenti is generally good for a pep talk.
 * Even the IEA (which has been publishing ridiculously pessimistic price predictions) is quite rosy about economics of power technologies. Considering the fact heat is not as well-developed as power, I think the current sentence works. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's fine. Ben   Mac  Dui  13:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * There is also an emerging political debate -> remove the word emerging, this debate is now old.
 * > Removed. 'Old' is somewhat contingent of course. For a younger person 2015 is 'old', for an older person it may be a seemingly newer and perhaps still emerging debate if one can remember a time when such debate was confined to a few enthusiasts. Ben   Mac  Dui  12:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Close without FARC -- It might be nice to have this as a TFA during COP26, which may require some additional finetuning/updating closer to the date. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Ben   Mac  Dui  16:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Close without FARC, Ben MacDui does not disappoint! Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

DrKay (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.