Wikipedia:Peer review/Renewable energy in Scotland/archive1

Renewable energy in Scotland
This became a Good Article in February and I am considering proposing it for Featured status. Constructive comments of all kinds welcome. Ben MacDui (Talk) 17:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch
I have read the article and find it to be generally well written and well referenced, impressively so in most places. I have a few relatively minor suggestions for improvement. 1) The first picture should be moved up so that it is in the top right corner, per WP:MOS.

2) The lead paragraphs are supposed to be a summary of the article that follows. This means that they do not contain anything that is not in the rest of the article, and that every header or subheader is at least mentioned somehow in the lead paragraphs. While the lead does a fairly good job of this now, there are some exceptions. For example, Peak oil is mentioned only in the lead and not in the article body. In the article itself, Biofuels and Micro systems are headers but are not explicitly mentioned in the lead paragraphs (at least by those names).

3) It might be useful to explain the difference between watts (usually as Gigawatts) and watt-hours (as Terawatt-hours) to make comparisons between them clearer. There are a few places where the numbers being compared can get confusing. As an example of both issues, consider:

"In January 2006 the total installed electrical generating capacity from all forms of renewable energy was less than 2 GW, about a fifth of the total electrical production.[4] By January 2007 wind power capacity, which has been growing rapidly, reached 1 GW capacity, and the total for renewables had grown to to over 2.3 GW[8] representing about 13% of total output in 2006.[9][10] It should be borne in mind that electricity production is only part of the overall energy use budget. In 2002, Scotland consumed a total of 175 TWh of energy in all forms, some 2% less than 1990."

I read this and think less than 2 GW equals a fifth or 20%, so total electrical generating capacity must be less than 10 GW (5 x 2) in January 2006. In the next sentence it is a year later, January 2007, and the total for renewables is now over 2.3 GW, but this is now only 13% of total output? How does output compare to capacity? My amount has grown from under 2 to over 2.3 GW, but my percentage has declined from 20% (a fifth) to 13%? Or am I comparing apples and oranges (and if so, can this be made clearer?). To add to the potential confusion, the next sentence introduces terawatt-hours and switches from capacity / output to consumption. Could total electricity consumption in TWh be given for comparison? Could total capacity / output be given? I realize that sometimes you have to compare data from different sources and apples and oranges and kumquats are the result, but if this can be clarified, that would be helpful.

4) I think the organization is generally good, but wonder if "Other renewable options" is worth a header of its own as one sentence. At WP:FAC they may also want some condensation of headers and subheaders (the TOC is long, but seems generally OK to me).

5) The table has some blank cells - are these zero or not available or what? Can you make it clearer what the blanks represent?

6) Could main or see be used for some of the energy sources? (i.e. add them to the top of the section to get "Main article: Wave power" or "Further information: wave power").

I hope this helps and please let me know if I can be of further assistance (and when it is at FAC). Ask if there are questions or my comments are unclear. Ruhrfisch 21:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Additional comment - after I left the above comments, I saw the note you left on the article's talk page. Sounds as if apples and oranges are all that there are in many cases. You might then want to be more specific in your cites (According to A it is 4 GW, while B says it is 8 GW...) or even cite ranges (It is estimated to range from 4 to 8 GW (with notes to A and B)). Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch 19:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply
1) The first picture should be moved. Done.

2) The lead paragraphs are supposed to be a summary of the article that follows. Done.

3) It might be useful to explain the difference between watts (usually as Gigawatts) and watt-hours (as Terawatt-hours) to make comparisons between them clearer.
 * I have added a footnote to explain the GW/TWh difference.

I read this and think less than 2 GW equals a fifth or 20%, so total electrical generating capacity must be less than 10 GW (5 x 2) in January 2006. In the next sentence it is a year later, January 2007, and the total for renewables is now over 2.3 GW, but this is now only 13% of total output?


 * Electricity is only 20% of all energy use, which is alluded to in the following sentence. The on-line reference has gone Awol. I will check it later and maybe amend the wording. Done.

Additional comment - after I left the above comments, I saw the note you left on the article's talk page. Sounds as if apples and oranges are all that there are in many cases. You might then want to be more specific in your cites (According to A it is 4 GW, while B says it is 8 GW...)
 * I am reluctant to try, partly because some sources quote TWh, some GW etc. and the comparisons would then have to make all kinds of explicit assumptions about the relationship between the two.

4) I think the organization is generally good, but wonder if "Other renewable options" is worth a header of its own.
 * Moved to become a subsection of next section. Realistically. I think the only way to reduce the headings is to make the article shorter.

5) The table has some blank cells.
 * New note after the table refers.

6) Could main or see be used for some of the energy sources? Done.

I hope this helps.
 * Indeed yes. Many thanks. Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome - glad to be of assistance, Ruhrfisch 02:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 02:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)