Wikipedia:Peer review/Coopers Gap Wind Farm/archive1

Coopers Gap Wind Farm


Looking at getting this peer reviewed, as I've expanded it quite a bit and would like some feedback on what else needs improvement, and if anyone sees any glaring issues.

Thanks, DiamondIIIXX (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Zetana
Here are some initial comments. In case you haven't seen it already, WikiProject Energy has some featured articles on power plants that you may find helpful to reference, in terms of what kind of information that could be added. The link is here, I think Scout Moor Wind Farm is most relevant as it's the closest in topic to this article. That's it for now, I may post more comments later if I can figure out how to word them properly. I can also provide a more detailed prose review after any major expansions are complete. Zetana (talk) 07:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) I think the article could benefit from some background information (either in a dedicated Background section, or in the History section) which goes into some detail about the political/environmental/regulatory/social/energy climate that Coopers Gap exists in. For example, Scout Moor Wind Farm describes the contemporary political/social climate regarding renewables & wind energy in the UK, as well as the local political & advocacy efforts for and against the project.
 * 2) In the "Site" section, what are Niagara Road, Jarail Road, etc.? Are they local roads, major arterials, highways? If they are just local/rural roads, I don't think you need all the details for how the site is bounded by the roads, and you can just say "The site is X distance from the Bunya Highway". I think you should also include here the facts you had in the lede: It is located approximately 175 km north-west of the state capital Brisbane, and 50 kilometres south-west of Kingaroy and 65 km north of Dalby. It's a bit of duplication but that information definitely should be in the body of the article.
 * 3) In "History", you write In April 2011, some local landholders expressed concerns at a community forum related to health effects and the noise of the wind turbines, some of which would be less than a kilometre from homes. It's a bit out of place in this section; the sentence could be spun off into a new "Response" section or something similar, which contains information about how the project has been received, e.g. politicians, advocates, and in this case local residents.
 * 4) Also in "History", there is information about an emergency drill that was conducted by the operators. I think this is not necessary to include because (a) drills are a fairly routine occurrence and therefore not particularly notable by default; and, (b) as currently written, there isn't something very unusual or unique about the drill & its outcome (that was also reported on in the news) that would necessitate its inclusion.

Any progress on the above comments? When you have responded to the comments, please ping Zetana. If the article needs significant improvements, or you don't have time to work on these, can this PR be closed and a new one opened when the above are addressed? Z1720 (talk) 00:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * @Z1720 @Zetana Fixed concerns in 2 and 4. For 3 - I believe it fits in history as it's part of the development process. I'm not sure what would need to be included to help with concern 1. Some ideas would be helpful here. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, no complaints on #3. For #1, I'm basically looking for information about why Coopers Gap exists, if there is any. Like, there's often legislation that provides a financial incentive for companies to invest in renewables. And that legislation comes from societal and/or scientific awareness about fossil fuel emissions, which drives public/political sentiment towards trying to develop renewables. For example, the article about Scout Moor talks about government initiatives to increase renewable energy (for some political context, though personally I think it could use a bit more), and then a bunch of details about the bureaucracy/public comment needed to get the project approved and built. Were those factors in the development of Coopers Gap, or did the company just decide to build it independent of those factors? Zetana (talk) 04:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Zetana There is a LRET (Large-Scale Renewable Energy Target) in Australia, which creates LGCs (Large-scale Generation Certificates) for each MWh of renewable energy produced. This applies to every renewable energy project in Australia. The wind farm would also contribute to the federal RET (renewable energy target) of 33,000 GWh by 2020, and also the Queensland Government's 50% renewable energy target by 2030.
 * So I guess this provided an incentive, but also the cost of wind energy has reduced so it wouldn't have been a deciding factor for the project to go ahead. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'm a bit busy right now but I will get back to you tomorrow with more comments. Zetana (talk) 07:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, your explanation makes sense, do you think it would help if that information is included or not? I suppose I'm just curious about when the operators expect to break even on the investment, and also more details about the history, as it's a bit sparse right now (e.g. there's a gap between 2011, and 2017 when the project was approved: what took it so long?) The only other thing I see is that the Stockhard Hill Wind Farm fact in the lede is not duplicated in the body. Zetana (talk) 04:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's that important. It's included in the Renewable energy in Australia page, though.
 * >there's a gap between 2011, and 2017 when the project was approved: what took it so long?
 * Probably the market conditions and investor uncertainty. The LRET was in place in that time, so it seems it didn't help the project get off the ground.
 * From 2011 to 2017, Wind turbines went through a large change in size so I think approvals would have constantly been changed as the proposed dimensions would have been different. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Query from Z1720
Hi are you still interested in getting comments for this article? The longer a PR stays open, the less likely the article will receive feedback. If you want more reviews, I suggest posting a request on Wikiprojects this article is part of. If not, can you close this PR? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 15:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC)