Talk:Renewable energy industry
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Renewable energy industry has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment. | |||
|
||||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, which collaborates on articles related to energy. | |
 GA |
This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| High | This article is on a subject of high importance within energy. | |
|
This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
||
 |
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject. | |
| GA |
rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. | |
[edit] Good article nomination on hold
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of April 3, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:
- 1. Well written?:
Overall the article is well-written, but there are few minor issues. First and foremost, the first sentence of the article fails to state the obvious by defining its subject. Nowhere as yet does the article say what the renewable energy industry is, it immediately dives right with facts about the state of the industry. I'll try my hand at this presently, but even if my version is undesirable a change should be made. I forget where exactly the MOS guideline is, but I seem to remember that you should parenthetically convert amounts (such as liters). There are also a few WP:MOS#Images issues: can we reduce the lead image just a little bit? I know it's important to be able to see the figures, but it's squashing the text. Also, in a couple places the article stacks right-aligned images on top of each other without any space. This should be corrected, either with some simple space given between right aligned images or by left alignment. There a few other tiny MOS things I'll fix, they won't take but a second. - 2. Factually accurate?:
Adequately makes in-line citations to reliable sources. Good job. - 3. Broad in coverage?: Definitely broad in coverage. I would've liked to have a bulkier Trends sections if possible (maybe combine the separate ones in to a larger overview at the end of the article?).
- 4. Neutral point of view?: Provides fair coverage to all significant points of view.
- 5. Article stability? Obviously stable, no edit wars etc.
- 6. Images?: All images have necessary copyright tags and sources.
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. VanTucky 23:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Notes
For readability, please place any comments or questions pertaining to the hold below rather than within the body of the review. Thank you!
I've dealt with the images issues and the lead sentence. VanTucky 23:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you, Van, for reviewing and for making those improvements. I've expanded the wind power trends section, with a view to keeping trends in separate sections, and hope this is OK. Is there anything else left for me to do? Johnfos (talk) 04:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] No Hydros
Hydroelectricity companies don't belong to this page?Calvingao (talk) 06:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
