Talk:Nuclear energy policy of the United States/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Piotrus (talk · contribs) 03:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Looks good, to this ESL.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Lead needs expansion, see my comment on 3b below. "Nuclear energy policy of the United States links to 7 different disambiguation pages" - please run the tool from the toolbox above and fix them. Everything else seems fine, including all elinks. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   No major red flags, but the citation density is lower then I'd like: please consider referencing all sentences. This article seems to have references every few sentences - one for short paras, several for longer ones. Remember that others can move and add content between unreferenced sentences, confusing the reader as to which ref was used for the first sentences. And some key sentences are unreferenced, for example: "There were two phases in U.S. nuclear policy." (according to whom...OR?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Dependent on 2a. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

   C. No original research:

   Ditto. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   The overview seems comprehensive. In fact, per my comments below, the "Public response to nuclear accidents" section may be too much for this article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

   B. Focused:

   I wasn't sure where to comment on this, and this seems reasonably on topic. A problem with the current article is that some information seems out of place. In the background, the first two paragraphs, before the "Atomic Energy Acts of 1946 and 1954" section, seem very general. They are relevant to the article, but why are they there, in a section that is followed by the beginning of a very long "history of the policy"? The sections starting with the Atomic Energy one are confusingly divided into second and third level headings, whereas I'd strongly suggest they should be united under one second level heading, the "History of the Nuclear energy policy of the United States". (The current headings can be transformed into third and fourth level headings). "State response to nuclear expansion legislation" and "Plans and cancellations" may need their own section, I am not sure how fitting they are for the history one. Next, "Public response to nuclear accidents" section, which is well written, lacks a clear rationale for why is it part of this article. Perhaps it should be split into its own subarticle, and only briefly summarized here? Perhaps, "Recent developments"? Taking all of that into consideretion, I'd love to see a section discussing, clearly, what is the current US policy towards the nuclear energy. Or, perhaps, such a paragraph can be part of the lead, which brings me to my final comment here (albeit, the first one I've written in this review): the lead could be expanded, with at least one more paragraph.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   No red flags. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Yes.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   All looks good, no fair use images here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Again, perhaps not the best section for it, and this is not an issue preventing this article from being GAed, but File:New-plants.gif needs to be transferred to Commons, and likely, redone: in the current article it is fuzzy, and the thumb makes captions illegible. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   On hold. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

More work is needed

I think this is an adequate B-class article. But it needs more work before it can succeed as a GA. I am concerned that the basic structure of the article is WP:OR, in that there is no reference provided that supports the idea of a first nuclear age and second nuclear age. The article says: “There were two phases in U.S. nuclear policy. The first phase lasted from approximately 1954 to 1992. By the end of the 1980s, new plants were being built, and after 1992, there was a period of 13 years without any substantial nuclear legislation”. But there is no reference provided for this statement. And there was the Nuclear Power 2010 Program which was unveiled in 2002, but the article does not seem to fully discuss this. I offer this as an initial comment and expect to say more as time permits over the next couple of days. Johnfos (talk) 05:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Where is the Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (1957) discussed? This is a major piece of legislation that protects the nuclear industry from bearing the full burden of its risky operations, as the Act limits industry liability in the case of accidents. There is some recent relevant discussion in the literature here. Johnfos (talk) 01:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

With reference to the "Public response to nuclear accidents" section, discussed in the review above, I think the Chernobyl and Fukushima sections should be trimmed and the TMI section expanded, paying particular attention to implications for US government and industry. There should be discussion of the post-TMI Kemeny Commission which concluded that fundamental changes were necessary in the organization, procedures, practices, and attitudes of the NRC and the nuclear industry. With reference to recent tightening of US regulations as a result of Fukushima, there is an interesting article here. Johnfos (talk) 01:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Contesting the Future of Nuclear Power (2011) is a new book which provides much relevant information. There is a particularly good section on the "stalled nuclear renaissance" from pages 6 to 12. Very relevant to this article and highly recommended as an up to date and highly reliable source. The final chapter of the book is available here. Johnfos (talk) 02:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Policy and politics about nuclear waste management needs more coverage in this article. The absence of a working waste management facility became an important issue by the mid-1970s and in 1976, the California Energy Commission announced that it would not approve any more nuclear plants unless the utilities could specify fuel and waste disposal costs, an impossible task without decision on reprocessing, spent fuel storage and waste disposal. By the late 1970s, over thirty states had passed legislation regulating various activities associated with nuclear waste. The analysis of recent events around Yucca Mountain needs to be expanded and moved further towards the end of the article since it is a current issue. There is much recent discussion in the literature on the politics of YM and this should be cited. Johnfos (talk) 03:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the reviewer above that "current US policy" needs more discussion, and an analysis of YM would certainly help to provide this. Also relevant is the stance of the Obama Administration on YM and nuclear power in general, and that should be covered near the end of the article. Johnfos (talk) 03:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with the reviewer's comment above that a better lead is needed. The lead needs to better summarise the article -- aim for three or four solid paragraphs. Johnfos (talk) 05:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

This review is approaching a week mark, and I have yet to see any activity by the principal author and nominator (Kayz911 (talk · contribs))... this worries me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Piotrus, thanks so much for your feedback and thank you for reviewing the article, sorry I have not responded as of late. I however, have had a great deal of academic work fall in my hands in the last few weeks. I am unsure if I am able to make all the changes necessary on here, and I do not think I should be the only one doing this. So let me take a few moments to address your concerns:

1. I do not know how make/use a tool that disambiguate the pages like you asked. So I cannot be much help there, I do not have a mastery of the scripting like many :-/ Kayz911 (talk) 06:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

2. Lead expansion may not be a huge problem because it is only a few more paragraphs needed, but this will depend on what expansions are needed. Kayz911 (talk) 06:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

3. Citation of every sentence may be hard for me, considering my time constraints. Although I see your points, of the sections I complied, when you see two sources one is from a text source and one is from the actual cumbersome legislation. However, this will probably be the easiest of tasks.Kayz911 (talk) 06:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

4. I'm not exactly following your suggestions for restructuring, would you mind re-explaining your thought process? It seems to be the crux of this problem here. Also public response is often consider as a driving factor in policy implementation the (or the lack there of), there are numerous sources which consider public response as a major factor to why first nuclear age ended (and maybe the Renaissance). There are also many sources, which state the terms about the nuclear ages, and Renaissance (one of the top of my head is the world-nuclear.org, but I have seen others). I will try to get those sources again, and if they are no longer there, I will rewrite those parts. but in the discussion tab I have already listed them out I think as well as a source that John submitted from Benjamin K. Sovacool's book above (on the term Nuclear Renaissance). Kayz911 (talk) 06:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

5. The current nuclear policy is of the Energy act of 2005. There is nothing really new going on, and companies are still in the approval/requesting funding phase. I am super hesitant on writing this section, because it think there isn't a unified opinion on this subject, and even the academia world is hesitant to give one. This is why I like the public approval section actually, because it shows the response to the legislation on both sides and the hopes for more or less legislation regarding the topic. I would say this is in a debate phase for the next step, but no house or senate legislation has gotten off of committee in recent memory. Kayz911 (talk) 06:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

6. As to John's comments, I think the article has so far focusing predominantly on still implemented federal policy/legislation. Although there is plenty on the state level in here, I simply do not have the expertise to expand those sections. Nuclear Power 2010 Program for instance (announced in 2002, not last year), was not actual policy (a precursor to the energy act of 2005), it was a agenda proposed by a cabinet member it looks like, but still a section that could be included because it did have real funding contributions. But overall, I think John's comments are valid (if they can be expanded and sourced), and thus have a place in the article. And as a contributor to this page, I encourage him to add them since as he aptly points out that this page does not belong to me, and thus other others should help out! As long as the sources are correct and from legitimate outlets, I have no complaints. From even the most general scan of the information out there, this is a 20+hr task for these expansions, and thus I simply do not have the time to spend here. I was under the impression that the majority of the contributors thought this was a GA worthy article. Though it seems there now might be some major additions needed, and I this GA review might just be the starting point for other authors to jump in and expand this! I only hope that information is kept up with on this page, the rating is secondary. Any Thoughts/comments to this? Kayz911 (talk) 06:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: 1: click on the link, see which links need to be fixed, find them in text, fix them. No need to use any script. Or you can ask somebody else for help at WP:VP or at a help desk.

Re: 4: Are all my comments in focus unclear? If you can cite that the public public response is a major shaping force in the policy, that's fine, just make sure this is clear both in lead and at the beginning of the public response section.

Re: 5: if you can find sources to cite what you've written above, that would be quite beneficial to the article (form "this is the latest" to "there is no consensus within academia on..."). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Wait, what do you want me to fix: the disambiguation page which someone created that I have no idea why (because it does not need to be disambiguated); internal red links to wiki pages; or citations? Ok, I combined the first paragraphs, and updated the headers, check it out and see what you think. I also expanded the lead, with information used in the article. As for your comments on public opinion, I'm not sure if I can find such a source. However, I can find reference to how public opinion affects policy (from a political theory concept), but not necessary specifically related to nuclear power. It would tie it together? That is all I can do for a day or so, let me know and take a look at what I did. Thanks againKayz911 (talk) 07:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for taking so long to revisit this article; in the future please ping me on my talk when you would like me to respond more promptly. Disambig links need to be fixed. Reference density has not improved, that includes the very sentence I cited earlier ("There were two phases"). In addition, "dubious" tags have been added. Regarding your last question, yes, a referenced statement on how public opinion affects policy would tie that section better into the article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I removed the wrong ref tags. Idk what to do about the dubious tags that Johnfos throw in there that he doesn't feel the need to edit or make chances on, I can provides sources to that information easily. I'll have to look at that, and see if I can fix them somehow. I am currently gathering sources tying public opinion to public policy, and I have two sources already. I will draft something up. For the increased cations, I will not have time until sometime early to mid next month, and I'll be happy to cite or remove those phrases at that time. As for the Disambiguation page, I opposed it entirely because I think it does not apply, and I have no idea how they work...but what links need to be fixed, they all look good to me? We are talking about [1] right? More chances to come soon. Kayz911 (talk) 07:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: disambigs: we are talking about [2]. If you need a month or so, I may have to consider failing this nom on procedural grounds (a review rarely lasts over a week, and we are already over a month here). This would be no criticism of the work, simply a reflection on how long GANs should be reviewed. I could also ask for another reviewer to take a look, I know that I tend to be more demanding with regards to citations than some. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not particularly familiar with the subject matter but the number of "dubious" tags concerns me, and at least some of them appear to be valid tags even with my limited knowledge A particular oddity that needs to be sorted out is what happened between 1992 and 2005, if anything. If nothing happened, then why? I notice that this review has been going on for a while: that does not particularly bother me and, hey, I have never acted as a GA reviewer, but the combination of that and what do appear to be legitimately tagged concerns makes me think that perhaps the GA process should stop for now. If Kayz911 can come up with the goods, as indicated in their message of 07:22 22 November above, then it can always be renominated. - Sitush (talk) 16:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Of half of the dubious tags that are placed in there, I have talked until I was blue in the face about on the discussion page with Johnfos. So there obviously isn't a general agreement on the GA status here, so I though more would be willing to help make the changes, but it seems they have not. I just don't have the time at the moment and the other half the dubious tags will take hours of research that I will have to dig up to find a source that probably won't appease the tagger that does not want to help edit the changes necessary. If I can ever get around to making the changes here, then I can re-submit it, but the hole just seems to be getting deeper and deeper as the GA review continues. So lets just remove the nomination and we can always submit it at a later date. Thanks again for all the help and reviewing here, I really wish it could have turned out differently...but I guess it's just how it goes Kayz911 (talk) 06:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

All right, I am failing this as it is clear the article is not stable, and certain issues need to be discussed. If the existing group of editors cannot reach a consensus, please consider a WP:RFC or a WP:MEDIATION. I am satisfied that if that was resolved, another reviewer would gladly pass this as a GA (I think that the article would benefit from a different reviewer than me, as another set of eyes may offer insights I cannot). Finally, let me note this is an excellent article, already much better than some GAs I've seen out there. This failure should not be seen as a criticism of the author(s) who I believe have done a very good job on many levels. I'll be looking forward to seeing this GAed in a few weeks (or months)! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)