Jump to content

Talk:Plug-in electric vehicle/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a well-researched article about a very important topic. However, there are several issues that need to be addressed:

Structure
Resolved structure comments
  • The body of the article needs to explain what a PEV is and the basics of how it works. A new section is needed, perhaps titled Design or Engineering.
  • The lead explains that there are two types of PEVs: BEVs and PHEVs. This should be explained in more depth in the body, perhaps in a section titled Classification.
  • Nearly half of the prose and more than half of the TOC is dedicated to tax incentives. This is far too much when considering how minor of a subtopic this is. The issue is exacerbated by the inclusion of information that is not tax-related. I suggest splitting this information off into a new article. As for this article, consider collating the material by exemption type rather than by country: a subsection for rebates, a subsection for manufacture subsidies, a subsection for deductions, etc.
Comments about structure: When I created this article I clarified in the talk page the scope of the article because there is an overlap between plug-in hybrids and battery electric vehicles/electric cars, so it was important to avoid repetition of content already in those articles. Besides some tekkies and advocates, the term plug-in electric vehicle is used in legislation in the US and the UK to refer to these type of vehicles, and with some variation, also used in other countries and American states. Therefore the article concentrates on the existing subsidies and tax credits for all countries, and on the common advantages and disadvantages of PEVs.
  • I agree with you that the suggested explanations are missing, but the definition of PEV is essentially just what is said in the lead (so it would almost repeat the same - here I could streamline the lead and try to add a bit more of detail in the body). In order to avoid duplication of content I think the sections on PHEVs and BEVs are necessary as you suggest but should be relatively short, since ample articles already exists with all the details about this type of electric drive vehicles.
  • My main concern is the long section "Tax incentives for PEVs by country", which as you can see in the Talk, was considered for a split as you suggested, but without this section there is not much left of an article (value added I mean as compared to the existing articles about PHEVs and BEVs). Furthermore, a lot of articles about EVs and PHEVs are linked to this section for the details of the existing incentives by country, so this was another reason for not doing the split. As you can see here there are about two dozen of articles about the especific PEV models linking to this section, so the split would translate into tracking all those links (sometimes there are more than one per article, see the Nissan Leaf for example, as incentives for each country redirect to each specific country sub-section) to redirect to the new article. One alternative could be to change the article name, to something like Government incentives for plug-in electric vehicles (what the split would be called, with the definition of PEV as a section) but then the advantages/disadvantage section would be left orphan. I am looking forward to hear from you to reach for a suitable solution.--Mariordo (talk) 04:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am of the opinion that there is a sufficient amount of information and sources to split off a new government incentives article. The fact that doing so would require us to reroute many wikilinks in other articles is a very minor inconvenience, as it would be child's play to use a tool such as AWB to fix them all. Even if it were more of an inconvenience, it is important to keep in mind that the encyclopedia should always present information in the best possible way for the reader, not the easiest possible way for the contributors.
Here is my ideal solution, and one which I think is very doable: First, add a new section titled Design (or whatever you think would be more appropriate) that contains a paragraph summary of BEVs and PHEVs. Such a section would benefit from the use of the {{see also}} or {{main}} hatnotes. Second, split the government incentives section into a new article, summarize it here, and again use an information hatnote. Once the structure has reached a stable state, we can work on the details, such as sourcing, clarity, and MOS compliance. At some point we can find someone experienced with AWB to fix all of the relevant links. Does this sound like a good plan? --Cryptic C62 · Talk
Agreed that readers are first, that is my whole purpose of contributing to Wikipedia. Due to my present time constraints I will begin with the lead and the new section, using a structure similar to the one I used in Flexible-fuel vehicle#Terminology. Since I will do it piecemeal, I will let you know when is finished before I move forward with other structural changes.--Mariordo (talk) 16:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first re-write and expansion is not finished (several details still pending) but I think it is good enough to evaluate the structure. Would you please provide your feedback before I do more radical changes. Thanks.--Mariordo (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The new Terminology section is definitely a big step in the right direction. I think the individual definitions should be subsections rather than be set off by semicolons. I don't think that it would be necessary to include a subsection on HEVs since the only thing that needs to be said about them is that they aren't considered PEVs. Also, on a rather obvious note, the section needs more citations. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
New section re-organized (still working on the citations) and split completed (Government incentives for plug-in electric vehicles), please check the summary left in the main article.--Mariordo (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps instead of the Europe / Japan / United States / Other subdivisions we could reorganize the material by continent: Europe / Asia / North America. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will re-structure by continent.--Mariordo (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. I will let you know when I am finished with referencing the new Terminology section, so you can check if this first phase of the review is complete.--Mariordo (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I believe the re-structuring you suggested is finished and the new section has all the RS. I would like you to verify all issues you have raised at this point, so that we can close this phase, and continue with the review. Nevertheless, remember that I am on vacation, so I am in no hurry.--Mariordo (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Aftermarket conversion subsection leaves three questions unanswered: Is such a conversion legal? How is it done? What about other countries?
I disagree with this recommendation. The objective of the section is just to define the types of vehicles considered as PEVs, and more details are already provided in the two articles included in the "See also" Plug-in hybrid conversions and electric vehicle conversion. Furthermore, the questions you raised are indeed very interesting for the readers but a bit difficult to cover them comprehensively and for other countries, as most sources point to US conversions. The development of these topics will require a lot of space and I think they belong to any of the two articles mentioned above.--Mariordo (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The vast majority of the material in Noise reduction discusses why it is a problem that PEVs are so quiet. I think it may be a good idea to move this subsection to the Disadvantages section, though I welcome your input on the matter.
I agree with your assessment, but doubtful about the best way to handle this issue. Quietness is one of the key benefits of PEVs, but the safety issue is real, and I put them together for the purposes of NPOV. If I move it to disadvantages section I feel like giving too much weight to the safety issue. What do you think? --Mariordo (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed a tricky issue. If noise reduction is, as you say, one of the key benefits of PEVs, then the section should definitely contain more material describing this benefit. As it currently stands, the section contains one single sentence about the benefits and three meaty paragraphs about the safety issue. If you intend for this section to remain under Benefits, then this ratio needs to be altered. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Moved as you suggested. Please check the change in the heading name.--Mariordo (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Images
Resolved image comments
Three plug-in all-electric cars, a Th!nk City, aREVAi, and a Tesla Roadster, recharging in Norway from an on-street public charger.
Several plug-in electric vehicles charging in San Francisco.
  • The current lead image is not illustrative of the article as a whole because it is too specific.
What about these two options (captions can be reduced):
I like the San Francisco one a lot! It very clearly shows the relevant hardware without focusing on minute details. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Mariordo (talk) 16:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
Resolved source comments
  • There are several sources (refs 3, 8, and 90) which are dead links.
Fixed (+89).-Mariordo (talk) 04:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should try to avoid large unbroken walls of images, such as the ones in Terminology and in Government incentives, as it can be distracting and unclear which images are relevant to which paragraphs. I suggest removing an image from each or spacing them out further. In the case of the first wall, I suggest removing the Chevrolet Volt image, as it doesn't seem particularly relevant to that section. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Mariordo (talk) 14:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that Ref 22 (Duke Energy) is a neutral source when discussing energy costs. Duke Energy generates electricity, so any information they present on their website will be biased towards convincing the reader to use electricity rather than gasoline.
OK, I google quite a bit and since estimates available from other RSs assume different values for price of national average electricity (US$ per Kwh) and also of gasoline price (US$ per gallon), and because this content had two sources I removed the Duke citation leaving just the other RS.--Mariordo (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
Resolved prose comments
  • "The legislation of several national and local governments, including the United Kingdom, the United States and several of its states, use plug-in electric vehicle as a legal term to designate the category of motor vehicles eligible for tax credits, subsidies, and other incentives depending on battery size and their all-electric range" I don't understand why this sentence is in the Terminology section rather than in the Government incentives section.
I moved some of the detail to the incentives section as you suggested, but the reason to keep a brief mention is due to the fact that this is a legal term in federal law in the U.S. (I checked the regulations and the other uses were informal- UK's Plug-in Car Grant, California, etc.), so I think it is adequate to clarify that in the terminology section (the specific laws are listed in the split article about the incentives and in the corresponding section, so I think there is no need no repeat them in Terminology). Also I included the term "electric chargeable vehicle" use in Europe, which is the translation from French, so readers know is the same thing. Let me know if the new re-write is OK. Happy new year!--Mariordo (talk) 14:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "PEVs available in some markets include scooters, motorcycles, neighborhood electric vehicles or microcars, city cars, automobiles, vans, light trucks or light commercial vehicles, buses, trucks or lorries, and military vehicles." I suspect that the term "plug-in electric vehicle" most commonly refers to cars. If that's the case, this sentence should reflect that: "While the term "plug-in electric vehicle" most often refers to cars, there are several other types of plug-in electric vehicle, including ..." or something similar to that.
  • "Electric motors are more efficient at converting stored energy into driving a vehicle, and electric drive vehicles do not consume energy while at rest or coasting, and some of the energy lost when braking is captured and reused through regenerative braking, which captures as much as one fifth of the energy normally lost during braking." This is a very long sentence. I suggest splitting it up into two sentences.
Done.--Mariordo (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the cost difference in favor of PEVs will be even more favorable" It is somewhat redundant to use "favor" and "favorable".
Done-Mariordo (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The operating cost of a conventional automobile with a U.S. fuel economy of 25 miles per US gallon" Why a "U.S. fuel economy"? Shouldn't it just be "The operating cost of a conventional automobile with a fuel economy of 25 miles per US gallon" ?
The wording seems weird but every country measures fuel economy using different tests so fuel economy is not comparable among countries. But I think though less technical it is easy on the readers so I am removing "US" as you suggested.-Mariordo (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, these countries and regions might still obtain some air quality benefits by reducing local air pollution, as well as cites with chronic air pollution problems, such as Los Angeles, México City, Santiago, Chile, São Paulo, Beijing, Bangkok and Katmandu may also gain local clean air benefits by shifting the harmful emission to electric generation plants located outside the cities, far from people, and produced at night, when most electric vehicles are expected to be recharged." Yikes, this is a very long sentence! I suggest splitting it into 2 (or even 3) sentences.
Done.--Mariordo (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For the United States, the other developed countries and emerging countries such as India and China, their dependence on foreign oil has revived concerns about their vulnerability to price shocks and supply disruption; uncertainty about when oil production will peak and the higher cost of extracting unconventional oil; and the threat to national security due to the fact that most proven oil reserves are concentrated in relatively few geographic locations, including some countries with strong resource nationalism, unstable governments or hostile to U.S. interests." Another long winding sentence.
Done--Mariordo (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question/Comment: I appreciate the copyedit improvements you have made. Nevertheless, I think the edit regarding "...When operating in all-electric mode, electric cars and plug-in hybrids emit no harmful tailpipe pollutants ..." is technically incorrect because electric cars only operate in electric mode (so as it is unecessarily redundant), and the caveat "when operating in EV mode" should refer only to PHEVs. So, what do you think about the following alternate wordings:
"Plug-in hybrids when operating in all-electric mode, and all-electric cars emit no ...." or "Electric cars, as well as plug-in hybrids operating in all-electric mode, emit no ..." Any other suggestion is welcome.--Mariordo (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Currently, plug-in electric vehicles are significantly more expensive..." Avoid the use of "currently". See Wikipedia:MOS#Precise_language for details.
Done.--Mariordo (talk) 05:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many authors assumed that plug-in recharging will take place overnight at home." Not sure what this sentence is trying to say. Does "authors" refer to science fiction authors? Perhaps it would be better to start off the paragraph by saying something like this: "Homeowners with garages or nearby wall outlets would be able to charge their vehicles overnight while at home."
Done, but with a different wording. Since there are no significant numbers of PEVs in use today, most experts in the field make that assumption (which is based just on common sense but this is not a fact). The assumption is not only important from the perspective of many users not being able to recharge at home but also because in the future it is expected that PEV owners might benefit from recharging at lower electricity rates during the night (explained in other section)--Mariordo (talk) 05:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Electrical outlets or charging stations near their places of residence, or in commercial or public parking lots or streets or workplaces are required for these potential users to gain the full advantage of PHEVs and avoid range anxiety in the case of EVs." First, this sentence uses "or" four times within a single list. This desperately needs to be cut down to a more manageable list. Second, what is "range anxiety"?
Done, but range anxiety was defined once and the second use was directed to the wiki article. Also, I change the wording regarding the several "or" but read carefully, there are two different lists.--Mariordo (talk) 05:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, this infrastructure is not in place today" Another phrasing that will age quickly.
Well, actually it will take several years, but I did delete "today"-Mariordo (talk) 05:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Several cities in California and Oregon, and particularly San Francisco and other cities in the San Francisco Bay Area and Silicon Valley, as well as some local private firms such as Google and Adobe Systems, already have deployed charging stations and have expansion plans to attend both plug-ins and all-electric cars." Very long sentence. I suggest splitting this into a sentence about cities and another about private firms.
Done.--Mariordo (talk) 05:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • General note: After the first instance of "US$", all other mentions of this currency should be shortened to just "$". The relevant guideline can be found at WP:$.
I read it. In the particular case of this article I believe it might be confusing to use the full US$ only in the first instance because the article has a worldwide view and the section "Government incentives" actually deal with several countries and has several currencies, of which I made all the conversions to USD. In particular the North America sub-section can become really confusion (US vs Canada). So, can we applied just partially (only to the "Lower operating and maintenance costs" and "Cost of batteries" sections)? I rather prefer to keep it to avoid any confusion, but it is your call.--Mariordo (talk) 05:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If there are specific instances where you think it is necessary to specify US$, then that's fine. I just wanted you to be aware of the guideline because there are a lot of "US$" in the text. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the redundancy in the section "Lower operating and maintenance costs" as per my justification above (keeping it only when the content is about several countries).--Mariordo (talk) 05:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "during which their batteries could be used to let electricity flow from the car to the power lines" It is not the batteries that are being used to allow the electricity to flow; the batteries just store the energy. I would think that a term such as "cable" would be more appropriate for describing this transfer of energy.
Done with a different wording. Also I edited some hidden text I had forgot about, please check it because is a bit too technical.-Mariordo (talk)
This sentence is now written as though V2G already exists, whereas the rest of the paragraph is written as though V2G is something that could be implemented in the future. Which is it? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.--Mariordo (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As customers will not be allowed to purchase battery packs" Will not or are not? I would assume that such a restriction is already in place.
Fixed.--Mariordo (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The firm has already tested battery-switch or battery-swap stations" What is the difference between a battery-switch and a battery-swap?
None, fixed.--Mariordo (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Basically, when the Reva NXR's batteries are running low or are fully depleted, the driver is able to SMS REVive" Two problems. First: Avoid starting sentences with "basically". It sounds too informal and the sentence works fine without it. Second, while "SMS" is often used as a verb in in colloquial English, it should be treated as a noun in encyclopedic writing. I suggest replacing "to SMS" with "to send an SMS to".
Done.--Mariordo (talk) 05:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Also, some commentators have suggested" In English, "commentators" has a very specific meaning which does not apply here. I'm not sure what you meant by this. Perhaps "engineers" or "researchers"?
Done.--Mariordo (talk) 05:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The main deposits of lithium are found in China and throughout the Andes mountain chain in South America. In 2008 Chile was the leading lithium metal producer, followed by Australia, China, and Argentina." These two sentences contain essentially the same information, though they seem to contradict each other. If the two main lithium deposits are in China and South America, how it is possible that Australia was the second-largest producer?
There is no contradiction. Having the reserves does not means that they are being exploted. That is why Chile is the main producer, and Bolivia has the biggest known reserves but currently is not exploiting/producing. I added the wiki link to try to clarify a bit what deposits/reserves mean.--Mariordo (talk) 05:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which can be used to make lithium batteries for hybrid, plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles." I don't see any reason why this clause needs to be included. This section has already made it clear why lithium is needed for PEVs.
Done.--Mariordo (talk) 05:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Regarding rare earth elements, most reserves are located in China, which controls the world market for these elements as the country accounts for 93 percent of the global production of 17 rare earth elements, and since 2006 has been imposing export quotas reducing supply at a rate of 5% to 10% a year." Very long sentence. I suggest breaking it apart before "and since 2006".
Done--Mariordo (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "15 of the 27 European Union member states provide tax incentives for electrically chargeable vehicles, which includes all Western European countries except Italy and Luxembourg, plus the Czech Republic and Romania." As this is currently worded, it implies that the Western European countries are electrically chargeable vehicles. I suggest listing all of the countries in a footnote if the information is readily available.
Done. I do not think the footnote is necessary, remember that this section was split, and the branched article (already linked) presents all the details.--Mariordo (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "granted tax credits for new qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicles" This is the only instance of "plug-in electric drive motor vehicle". It should be changed to a more familiar term or explained somewhere.
Done--Mariordo (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The rebates will be available to the first 10,000 applicants who qualify." It has been half a year since this program started. Any idea if the 10,000 quota has been reached yet?
I Google, but I couldn't find anything new. Probably it is because the Nissan Leaf and the Chevy Volt have not been launched there yet. I will keep an eye to keep the article updated.--Mariordo (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Thanks for your review, very comprehensive and raised some structural issues I was not aware of. Since I am on vacation I will begin making adjustments a bit slowly. Tomorrow I will comment in detail on the structural issues to make sure you provide some additional guidance before creating the new sections you suggested.-- Mariordo (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fine by me. I'm in no hurry whatsoever and I look forward to working with you! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prose is good to go. Once we settle the Noise reduction issue, I'll be happy to pass the review. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for you work and patience.--Mariordo (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Plug-in_electric_vehicle/GA1&oldid=408299133"