Wikipedia:Peer review/Solar panel/archive1

Solar panel
Hello, I would like to get this as a featured article, since it's a very notable topic and deserves to have the highest status. —M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Some issues to be cleaned up before FACing it: Thanks, AndyZ 00:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The lead is way too short- see WP:LEAD. WP:WIAFA requires a lead that is a brief overview of the entire article.
 * The mathematics ("50*24/1000*.08=$.096)") isn't necessary, as long as there are citations for the numbers (remember, NOR!)
 * More citation information has to be added to the references- see WP:CITE, and consider Cite web.
 * Putting 8 images immediately at the beginning of the article inundates it. Consider spreading around the images, some on the left sides, some in different sections.
 * Per WP:CONTEXT, years without full dates should not be linked.

The article doesn't flow as well as it should - it seems a bit strange to launch straight into current development. Some suggestions:
 * Include some information about the origins of solar panels - when were they first used, who first sold them commercially?
 * As solar panels are arrays of photovoltaic cells, consider putting the section about solar cells higher up.
 * Consider moving the tables to the end of the article
 * Try to reduce the number of one sentence paragraphs.
 * Either expand the cost of solar photovoltaic panels section or merge it with another, short sections are a common reason for objection on FAC. Oldelpaso 17:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Is it ok if I make it a subsection of a larger section? —M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be fine. Oldelpaso 10:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Regards, =Nichalp   «Talk»=  09:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) The lead needs to be expanded
 * 2) Map of USA needs to go. (Country specific)
 * 3) Reduce the number of images at the start.
 * 4) History of the development of solar panels needs to be present
 * 5) All costs/prices should be removed and so too =Cost of solar photovoltaic panels=. These figures are unstable.
 * 6) An explanation on how the photovoltaic cells and heaters work is needed. It should be accompanied by a diagram and if possible an animation. This section should be the core of the article.
 * 7) It is claimed that if a quarter of the pavements... Please avoid weasel terms and country specific information.
 * 8) =Solar panels on spacecraft= is too long. Move the content to a dedicated article and summarise it into a small paragraph under photovoltaic section.
 * 9) =Current development= needs to be present much later in the article.
 * 10) What about solar power in developing nations?
 * 11) =World solar power production= : Not needed. This should be in the solar power article. Not in the panels article.


 * All my comments have not been addressed. Costs are still mentioned. A brief account on the working of the panels can be included. History needs to be expanded. Most sections could do with another paragraph. In the USA,; Germany has adopted an -- more countries need to be added as I'm sure a lot more countries have adopted a pro-solar power approach. =Theory and construction= could do with a graphic showing a sectional view of a solar panel.  =Nichalp   «Talk»=  16:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Costs are still mentioned, indeed. However, the prices remaining are old prices. Seeing as they're, say, prices for 2005, prices from 2005 can't change. So it's not exactly instable content, or do you have another reason to not like prices? —M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but prices where?? Prices are dependent on many factors including taxes etc. The prices mentioned would be in the United States, and since this article has a global scope, it would be out of place to have such data here. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  04:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That is a great reason. I'll go ahead to removing prices. --Messedrocker editing as anonymous coward 204.8.195.187 15:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I have, in one way or another, dealt with the suggestions listed on this page. Are there any other suggestions that come after I've improved the article? —M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, AndyZ t 02:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The first footnote is useless and can probably in some way be incorporated into the text.
 * The rest of the references starting from number 8 need citation information (again, see WP:CITE). Please also break up the links for retrieval dates: March 27, 2006 instead of March 27, 2006.
 * I know that's the norm, but that's not why it's like that. I blame the template. —M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 02:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I would suggest breaking up the references that aren't footnotes and the references that are footnotes. In addition, more footnotes should be added (there are only 4 as of now).
 * Just does not feel very comprehensive. Needs some more general references and just more in general, which should help identify areas important to the topic that are missed here. Specifically solar cells are often promoted as an alternative energy source that doesn't produce greenhouse gases. There's little in this article about that aspect, and what is there is either in the lead and not expanded on later or in the current development without much context. There's also nothing about the net environmental impact. Studies considering the emissions during production should be considered. A few I've read place the carbon break even at 15yrs plus or something. Cost break even at various power prices should also be discussed, not just mentioned once in the lead and not developed. The article is also not very balanced with prioritization given to the more important aspects, and less to minor details. - Taxman Talk 19:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)