Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of power stations in Sri Lanka/archive1


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

The list was not promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC).

List of power stations in Sri Lanka

 * Nominator(s): Reh  man  01:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The page shows the most comprehensive list of power stations in Sri Lanka, something that is [oddly] not found on a single source anywhere on the internet or offline. The list is rich with content, referencing, pictures, and a map. I believe this should pass FL. Reh  man  01:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's so quiet in here... Reh  man  12:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley
 * "while the renewable energy sector consists of mostly of privately-run plants" Repetition of "of"
 * Fixed. Reh  man  14:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)


 * "2,115MW (53.8%) was from thermal" In my view, the fuel used - gas or coal etc - is more significant than the technology.
 * There is only one coal source in the country. And thermal is the most common (and only) term used locally. Reh  man  14:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Fossil fuel section - no figures for the percentage and MW for different fuels and no columns in the table for this.
 * Sorry, I don't understand this point... Reh  man  14:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Coal is 900+500=1,1400MW, which is 35.6% of the total of 3932MW. Oil is 2115-1400=715MW, which is 18.2%. Gas currently zero, although you say there are plans to introduce it. I think these figures should be stated. Personally, I would have separate tables for coal and oil, but this is of course up to you. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added the figures to the lead section. The tables were separate when this list was created a long time ago. It was changed for two reasons, one because there will only be two entries in the coal table, and two because the local energy industry always collectively identifies all fossil-fuel plants as thermal power stations. You cannot find separated list anywhere on local publications. Hence the table was merged to reflect a more locally recognizable style. Reh  man  09:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with merging oil and coal. The fact that local sources make it more difficult to find the information which is most important for international readers is no reason for Wikipedia to do so. You have a separate table for solar, which has two power stations and insignificant capacity, and not for coal which is over a third of capacity. I would also suggest you have a separate table giving the MW for each power source and its percentage share of the whole. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * By "You cannot find separated list anywhere on local publications", I meant that they are always collectively identified, not that info about them are hard to find. Reh  man  00:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * "Hydroelectricity played a very significant role in the national installed power capacity since it was rapidly introduced in the 1950s–1990s." It is unclear whether this refers to the current situation - if it does, then I think you need "Hydroelectricity has played"
 * Fixed. Reh  man  14:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)


 * On my computer the list of hydroelectric stations is pushed below the images, created a large blank space.
 * I will try to see if this can be fixed... It may be one of those cases where the table wont be perfect on all resolutions... Reh  man  14:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)


 * What does nameplate capacity mean?
 * I have linked it. Reh  man  14:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)


 * What does the 'segment' column in hydroelectric refer to?
 * I have added a brief explanation. Basically, they are three regions which the government has created for hydropower development. Reh  man  14:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it would be better to change the heading from "segment" to "region" as your explanation refers to regions. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Changed to "Region". Reh  man  09:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


 * No geolocation for hydroelectric stations under construction, and none for any of the dams.
 * The physical locations of the power stations are not yet disclosed. Reh  man  14:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * But you have a column for the location of power stations. Should this be location of water source? If so, the missing locations of the ones under construction are given in the separate articles about them. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the water source and power station are not always the same. They could be located large distances (dozens of kilometres) apart. The sub articles states the coordinates for the water source/dam, not the power plant. Reh  man  09:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to be missing my point. You say above "The physical locations of the power stations are not yet disclosed." yet you have a column headed "Geo-location of power station" Dudley Miles (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to the two plants under construction. The power plant details of those are still not disclosed, but the water body is known. Hence those two fields under "Geo-location of power station" are blank. Reh  man  00:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Why is the commissioning date given for hydroelectric and not for other types?
 * Commission dates (for non hydro) are very hard to find, and the published dates are often conflicting with other sources. I was considering if to remove the hydro dates (to be in line with others)... What do you think? Reh  man  14:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I would personally remove them, but other editors may disagree.Dudley Miles (talk) 18:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I personally feel that it would be a bad move to remove information for the sake of decoration, but lets see if anyone else feel this should be removed... Reh  man  09:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * "after numerous wrongdoings and hidden political dealings surfaced" "wrongdoings" is colloquial and vague.
 * I chose that word from the referenced news linked. I have changed it to "misconducts". Hope that's better. Reh  man  14:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * How about "scandals"? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Reh  man  09:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


 * "The last privately owned first-come, first-served style wind farm projects, the Pollupalai and Vallimunai Wind Farms, were completed in late 2014, by when operations in the industry was ceased by presidential order.[" What are "first-come, first-served style wind farm projects"? Also "by when" is ungrammatical - and you say the industry was closed down and then give a list of operational stations.
 * I'm trying to say that the Pollupalai and Vallimunai Wind Farms are the newest/last wind farms that were commissioned. I did some changes to the wordings, but I'm unsure if it gives out the correct meaning. Also, industry was closed down for new projects. Reh  man  14:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "when operations in the industry was ceased until further notice" This implies that the whole industry has been closed down. Maybe "when the construction of new wind farms was suspended further notice" Does the closure affect the Mannar Island proposal? This should be made clear. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've added as "when the construction of new privately-owned wind farms were suspended until further notice", as that only applied to the private sector (the Mannar project was/is not affected). Thanks! Reh  man  09:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "The last privately owned first-come, first-served style wind farm projects" You still have not explained what "first-come, first-served style" means. If there are no new private projects being approved why not delete it and just say "The last private sector wind farm projects"? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In first-come-first-serve, if a particular developer submits an application for a particular patch of land, the gov assigns that land to that developer. Another developer cannot develop on the same patch of land. I will add an explanation to this later today or tomo (it's 06:35 now, need to head to work soon). If you wish to add yourself, please feel free. Also, they are not the last projects. Wind projects will be back online (the stopping of projects is only temporary). Reh  man  00:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I think more work is needed on this list. The information is limited compared with - for example - List of power stations in England, and inconsistent between different categories. For example, you give nearest city for thermal but not for other types. The type of fuel for thermal stations is crucial information which needs to be given. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Nearest city is included for thermal power stations because, locally, most of these thermal stations are also commonly called by the names of their closest city. This is not the case for other types. Also, the list is maintained in a summarized type to avoid being stretched too far causing multiple devises to not display properly (such as the white space you mentioned earlier). I'm using a 1920px wide display, and it is already almost the widest it can comfortably be. For fuel, I have added a sentence explaining that all thermal plants run on fuel oil, except for Lakviyaja and Sampur.
 * Thanks for the feedback Dudley Miles. I have responded to each point above with an indent. Reh  man  14:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think most points are covered now. However, a column for geolocation of hydro water sources would be helpful. Separate tables for coal and oil are, in my view, crucial. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The new intro looks much better. However, in "with a smaller share from by small hydro facilities", "by" should be removed. Do that and make separate tables for coal and oil stations as Dudley suggested, and you can consider me in the support column. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 21:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @Giants2008. Done. Is it better? Reh  man  23:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments
 * Don't start the article with "The following page lists...." we don't have featured articles which start "The following article ...." do we?
 * Working on it, as per Giants2008's first point. Reh  man  00:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Reh  man  10:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Graph caption has "hydropower" while the graph has "hydro power", be consistent. I would also avoid the glitzy graph style, 3D blocks, black background etc, this is an encyclopedic article, not a sales pitch.
 * I will do this over the course of this weekend. Is there any MOS for such charts? I'm unsure on what to base on... Reh  man  00:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This is done. Hope it's better now. Reh  man  06:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think "government" should pipelink to Ministry of Power and Energy.
 * Removed. Reh  man  00:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't "privately run" be hyphenated?
 * This was removed as per Giants2008's third point. Reh  man  00:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Why is "Power Purchase Agreement" all capitalised?
 * Changed to lowercase. Reh  man  00:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Link hydroelectricity the first time round.
 * Done. Reh  man  00:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * No need to relink megawatt.
 * Done. Reh  man  00:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Or coal. So, in general, check for overlinking.
 * Done. Reh  man  00:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Loads of white space in the Hydroelectric section because of those three large images down the right-hand-side of the article.
 * See reply to the fifth point by Dudley. Reh  man  00:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * That entire section of prose is unreferenced.
 * Will do this today. I will update here again. Reh  man  00:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Reh  man  11:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Two Hydroelectric power stations have no geographical info. At least add a note to say why not.
 * Added a note. Is that fine? Reh  man  00:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Please use human-readable dates for the commission date rather than YYYY-MM-DD.
 * Dates were kept that way for sorting. Is there way around this (human-readable dates that can be sorted)? Reh  man  00:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, the sorting template dts is specifically designed for this type of thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Check all references are formatted correctly, e.g. ref 11 is a bare URL.
 * That was added by IP recently. I have fixed it. Reh  man  00:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

--The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi The Rambling Man. Thanks for your comment. I have replied to each point above. Reh  man  00:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, after 2 months this FLC hasn't managed to get a lot of support, and I'm going to have to close it to keep the FLC queue moving. Feel free to renominate in the future, once you've finished any outstanding reviewer concerns. -- Pres N  20:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.