Talk:Blyth Power Station/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I would appreciate a little clarification on this point. The article is called "Blyth Power Station", yet it is clear that there were two Blyth Power Stations. Why isn't the article called "Blyth Power Stations"?

"The main foundations of the buildings were spread out, giving a load of about 2.3 tonnes (2.264 LT; 2.535 ST) per square foot." Need to be consistent about the order of presenting units. The article generally gives imperial then metric, except when talking about weight, as in this example, when it switches to metric/imperial.

"Each pulveriser was capable of pulverising 15 tonnes (14.76 LT; 16.53 ST) of coal an hour, sufficient to keep their associated boiler at full output." This should be either "its associated boiler", or "its associated boilers", depending on how many boilers one pulveriser serviced. The subject of the sentence is "each", so its singular.

"The volume of Blyth B's main buildings represented 27 ft³/kW of installed capacity, while Blyth A's building volume represented 26.3 ft³/kW." Needs metric conversions.

"The smaller buildings and structures were first to be demolished. However in May 2001, a worker was killed when an electrical connection box fell from a wall and crushed him." The "however" beginning the second sentence seems to imply that the accident had some effect on the smaller buildings being demolished first.

"On the 31 October 2001, the ash silo at the ash dock which stood on stilts was toppled using explosives ...". Which stood on stilts? The silo or the docks?

"... the four chimneys, each weighing 17,000 tonnes, were demolished using a total of 150kg of the industrial explosive Gelemex." Missing imperial conversions, but also see point above about consistent presentation of units.

"The proposed station would used generate electricity using three ..." Not sure what this is trying to say.

"The station would be built to Best Available Techniques ...". Why is this capitalised? Similarly "Combined Heat and Power plant."

"By 2025, it is predicted that the UK will need around 25 gigawatts (GW) of new generating capacity, and so the construction of a new power station at Blyth would contribute to lowering this demand for power." It wouldn't lower the demand, but it would go some way to meeting it.

"Despite the small amount of media usage of the power station, their four chimneys were still a strong landmark". Ungrammatical, and harks back to the first point I raised.

All in all this is a nice, informative, and well referenced article. I'm putting it on hold pending resolution of the above issues.

--Malleus Fatuorum 13:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has the title "Blyth Power Station" rather than "Blyth Power Stations" because that is how it is nearly always refered to as. Being on the same site and operating for the same sort of period of time, they have always been generally named as a single station. Google results for "Blyth Power Station" are 3,050, whereas google results for "Blyth Power Stations" is a mere 166.

Which is it best to have units as, metric/imperial or imperial/metric. I presume metric/imperial but I'm unsure, get back to me and I'll work through it and sort it out.

It doesn't matter which way round, but as the article uses mostly imperial/metric elsewhere it may be easier to stick with that. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point 3 is sorted I think.

I'm not sure where to start when converting cubic feet to cubic metres so could you help me with that one?

Yes, no problem. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've done that. BTW, if you're going to use the "abbr=on" parameter to {{convert}} you should use it throughout the article. I'd prefer to see the units spelled out in full, but whatever your preference the article should be consistent. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll go through now and get rid of the "abbr=on"s. Fintan264 (talk) 16:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explained this point a bit better now, may need a quick copyedit from you, as I'm not sure of the best way to put it.

Clarified this point I think.

Put in conversions but I'll still need a hand with some of the others.

Probably my fault that one, from when I was "tidying-up" that section.

Removed capitalisations, I think they were used in the source but at a second glance it seems more appropriate without.

Switched from lowering to meeting.

Switched to power stations, but I still feel Blyth Power Station should be kept as a title.

Thanks for the review. Fintan264 (talk) 15:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've managed to convert all the imperial/metrics to metric/imperials, seeing as metric is the done thing these days. You may want to have a check over to make sure I've gotten them all. If so then all that needs doing is the cubic foot conversion, yes? Fintan264 (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review closed, article listed as GA

Thanks for dealing with all of these issues so promptly and so cheerfully. I love to see articles like this one worked up to meet the GA criteria, which this one in my opinion now does. This is the kind of article that makes wikipedia different from any other encyclopedia. Well done, I'm closing this review now, and this article is now listed as a GA. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.