This is an archive of past discussions about Solar Roadways. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
In this edit, Jeh (talk·contribs) has re-restored reverted bold new text without attempting a discussion outside of edit summaries.
Earlier I had reverted this text on two grounds. First, that its sourced to a blog. Jeh's edit summary correctly points out that a strict reading of the text shows we're only reporting that some blogger bloke in Australia has a certain opinion. The first question to ask is whether that bloke's opinion has meaningful WP:WEIGHT? To help answer that question, let's move on to Point No. 2, speculation/CrystalBall.
I had also reverted on grounds that the Aussie bloke is running analyses without the engineering details being developed by Solar Roadways. The disputed text says the Aussie "has presented detailed analyses of Solar Roadways' proposals from the electrical engineering point of view." To my knowledge, the details of Solar Roadways' R&D are still proprietary, rendering any "detailed analysis" dependent entirely on speculation. It might be generally informed, with knowledge of the current state of on the shelf technology, but he has to guess what on the shelf technology might be used, and he has to assume the company has not invented any new components, materials, or combinations. Informed speculation is still speculation. In short, this guy is engaged in educated guessing on his blog, and that has ZERO WEIGHT.
You seen to be unfamiliar with the Fermi problem where you can make very good approximations without having exact data on a particular process. This is used very often in science and engineering fields to determine if something is even viable before doing a detailed calculation. Also aren't you speculating that company has "invented any new components, materials, or combinations"? You have a person who did an analysis with informed speculation and another person saying "trust us, we'll figure it out." Why would the Solar Roadway people have more weight? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.24.175.141 (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Jeh, can you show the fellow had access to the company's R&D and ran detailed analyses on the actual design specs? Now THAT would be interesting and important to include. Some blogger bloke who makes informed guesses? Not so much.
What evidence is there that he is a reliable source? Why should we be including his criticism in this article? Perhaps if an actual WP:RS quoted him or something, but sourcing directly to his videos is questionable to me. I'd support removing them and looking for better criticism from better sources, if such exists. —Torchiesttalkedits17:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
There is an ongoing deletion discussion for the guy's article. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David L. Jones. At any rate, he is just a YouTube blogger, saying whatever he feels like it, no one fact checking anything he says, no editorial staff at all. Just because someone is sort of popular on YouTube, doesn't make them a reliable source. DreamFocus17:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Not RS Except for his own opinions, but in this article his chest thumping really doesn't matter (ie, has no weight and should not be included). When the guy becomes a member of the national academy or wins a pulitzer or something then I can see his own blog qualifying for an exception to the blog rule, at least to the extent that he has certain opinions based on original speculation-based guesswork. Being a youtube bloke who makes interesting pontifications based on informed speculation isn't really grist for Wikipedia sufficient to qualify for a BLOG exception. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
He didn't write that, he "reached out to electrical engineer David Forbes". Who are they and why are they credible? Was this part of Gawker? Or just his personal blog, where he didn't know enough about it to write about, so he just picked some guy at random to talk about it? DreamFocus00:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
If it is RS, it is only RS for the notion there are "technical hurdles". The embedded essay provides no explanation how Forbes knows the various things he claims to know, like bolting details .... and is that in the version now in R&D or was that some idea from a few years ago? It's interesting, but since we don't really know what the guy analyzed (rumor or hands on prototype) we can't evaluate it properly. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Jalopnik says Jalopnik is a weblog covering cars, car culture, and the automotive industry. Owned and operated by Gawker Media since 2004, Jalopnik emphasizes irreverent humour.[1][2] "Jalopnik" is a portmanteau of Jalopy and Beatnik.[3]. This is a humor site, not a serious tech site. DreamFocus00:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
If the site has editorial oversight, which it does, it can be both humorous and reliable. Check the front page. The articles are serious enough; they just throw in funny remarks here and there. I'd thought that if a RS got commentary from someone, that commentary would be considered vetted and reliable as well. —Torchiesttalkedits14:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
T&C at ExtremeTech appears to disclaim editorial control and no responsiblity for content.... so not RS.
SingularityHub appears to a blog with a single writer masquerading as a news site. Also not RS.
OBSERVATION - if there is such good stuff in these weak sources, why aren't we seeing the same thing reported in sources like Popular Mechanics or NYT's Technology News? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Singularity Hub is already being used as a source in this article. The source already in use is by a different author than the article I linked above. As for ExtremeTech, can you explain what you mean about disclaiming editorial control? The about page indicates they have an editor and a staff of writers. Sebastian Anthony was a senior editor at the site. It's a specialty site, backed by a large publisher, focusing on technology, which seems like an appropriate venue for this type of analysis. —Torchiesttalkedits15:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
e/c
(A) SINGULARITY HUB - your reply is non-responsive to the criticisms posed. You merely said we're already using it. So? Our articles have lots of citations to sources that were ill-considered. In this case, the sole existing cite to that source is for the generic statement about this company's concept. We could easily replace that with any number of unquestionable RSs. My criticisms of SingularityHub as RS remain unanswered.
(B) EXTREME TECH - The site doesn't even bother to have its own terms and conditions. Instead, the T&C is derived from the parent company. The entire thing reads as a giant disclaimer for anything, including content quality. Our own article about Extreme Tech calls it a "weblog", and its clear from our article that the source has been struggling to gain and maintain standing
(C) You did not reply to my observation that if there are real zingers known to the world, they should be easily sourced to recognized mainstream sources, but we're still fighting these great battles over sources I'm pretty sure most people have never heard of.
You may have missed my addition stating that Singularity Hub has multiple authors, and is not just a one-man blog. Your comment on ExtremeTech is still unclear. Where are these terms and conditions you're referring to? The site has an editorial and writing staff, and a major publisher. That qualifies as reliable. I've checked around Wikipedia, and it's been agreed upon as a reliable source in a number of other articles and discussions, so there's plenty of consensus supporting that view. Outside of that, this article from the Huffington Post cites both of those articles and mentions some of the same numbers. —Torchiesttalkedits16:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Re singularity, # of eds really isn't the determining factor; the goalpost is and remains is that BLOG (yes). Re ExtremeTech, ummmmm uhhhhhh..... like most sites, the T&C would be the thing that says "Terms of Use" which on most news and blog sites is usually found under "About" or as in this case, at the bottom of the page in bold, where it says - naturally enough - "terms of use". As for the WP:VAGUEWAVE to mystery prior RS debates in unspecified locations... you didn't expect to convince me on that basis, did you? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree the RS value is improving, but its still a WashPo blog, in which the main things I think you want to use appear to be imported from other blogs. But that's me guessing. How would you propose to improve the article based on the WashPo blog? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
edit conflict... I was trying to add that blogpost appears in three archived discussions (search archives for "forget roofs"). I probably commented in one or more of them previously... I did not review them to refresh my memory.I'll respond to what you simultaneously posted (below) later. Gotta run for awhileNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)nothing to respond to after all NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
It says "Back in 2010, the company assumed that a 12′ by 12′ glass panel would cost around $10,000." That has nothing to do with current costs, which are unknown, and they said back then prices would go down when they went to mass production. So no reason to quote ridiculous guess numbers. And they are just quoting another blog, Vox, which discussions in the past agreed was not a reliable source. Their blog section doesn't have the editorial oversight as their main articles, that's why this was just posted as someone's personal blog, not an actual article, and it just quoted the first random numbers it found online. DreamFocus17:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
The extremetech article referenced says "According to some maths done by Aaron Saenz, the total cost to redo America’s roadways with Solar Roadways would be $56 trillion". It links to Singuarity Hub as the source for that information. [1] So if you have a quote, then why not mention the original source, not a guy who did nothing but repeat it without checking any numbers on his own? And didn't we agree before Singularity Hub wasn't a reliable source? They currently are used as a reference for the first paragraph, which just repeats what the company officially said. A real news source could be found to reference that. DreamFocus19:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
We didn't agree that Singularity Hub isn't a reliable source. They have an editorial staff as shown here. And Singularity University is an established group too. These sites are exactly the kind of technology experts who should be analyzing the available information. —Torchiesttalkedits06:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
If that's true, and if they have something worth saying, then we should be seeing journalists reporting those experts' conclusions in undisputed RS sources. But that isn't happening yet, apparently. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I've shown precisely that. To review:
Singularity Hub is reliable and did some analysis.
ExtremeTech is reliable and reported on SH, adding some of its own analysis. Here's the non-vaguewave info:
Huffington Post is reliable and reported on both of these sources.
Also, here's an article from Scientific American on the subject. Finally, it needs to be made clear that a site using the term blog doesn't always invalidate something as a source. If it's some tiny little site on wordpress, sure, but a blog can also be essentially the regular online column for a member of the writing staff for a site. That's the case with the Washington Post article and this one. Note the title of this blog is " Observations: Opinion, arguments & analyses from the editors of Scientific American". That means it goes through the usual editorial oversight and vetting process. And it links back to other articles on the site. It's analysis from a reliable secondary source independent of the subject, exactly what we need in the article. —Torchiesttalkedits17:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
The transcript of the state of the union address should be on some government website to search through to see exactly what he said. DreamFocus11:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Since the OP lacks a substantive explanation of how the OP thinks it would improve this article, I'm going to assume this thread was intended something else, and since TPG says these pages are for discussing article improvements, I'm not going to take time to answer. Oh wait. Damn. Too late. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
If the president really did mentioned it in his state of the union address, then that's import enough to be tossed into the article somewhere. DreamFocus11:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
The article would be improved because this is something quite notable, if it was actually true. I couldn't find anywhere mentioning that. I downloaded the 2015 transcript but don't see solar roadways mentioned once in it. DreamFocus17:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
DreamFocus gets what I was getting at--if real, it's quite notable. I took it at face value. Of course it must be checked. If it's NOT real, that also is notable for a different reason. It reflects on the company which this wikipedia page is about. GangofOne (talk) 00:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Here it is at commons.wikipedia.org From video of January 2015 State of the Union speech by President Obama, enhanced by the White House with commentary, about "Free and open internet" that allowed Indegogo (unnamed) to raise money for Solar Roadways . Take a look at http://www.solarroadways.com/images/news/Blue%20Room.jpg a visit to the White House GangofOne (talk) 01:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Opposed since the president is speaking about the internet, not solar R&D for roads. Also opposed because a pic of the pres does not inform the reader about the article topic, as images are supposed to do. Also opposed to mentioning the prez statement even in text because we would be assuming the president is refering to this company. Granted this company is the only one possibility I know of, but I still have to apply my special knowledge of that fact to connect the ambiguous statement by the pres to the Solar Roadways company. That's unpermitted OR, no matter how solid I think the assumption may be. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Whether it's used or not is not so important to me, but your reasoning puzzles me. If you listen to that section of the speech it's a list of various technological triumphs and optimistic forward-progress-marching-wonderfulness. The President didn't say the part about solar roadsways, but it's in HIS video, HE's the Chief, it won't be there if he didn't mean it. About the company referred to, it doesn't matter if Solar Roadways Inc is the company referred to building solar roadways, all that is necessary is that Solar Roadways Inc be in the set of companies that were crowdfunded over the internet by 48,000 people that build solar roadways. I think we agree Solar Roadways Inc is in that set. GangofOne (talk) 02:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I support inclusion, picture and all. The picture shows what we're talking about, no need writing out what was said, just show the image and mention where in the video it was at. DreamFocus02:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Opposed 'cause Prez didn't say it in the first place Well duh. Transcript of prez' actual speech lacks the phrase "solar road" or "solar roadway". This image creates a false impression that the phrase "solar roadways" made it into the actual State of the Union speech, thus putting words into Obama's mouth that he did not utter in the speech. The file uploaded to wikipedia credits "some goverment lackey" with the phrase made possible a an online fundraising platform that raised $2.2 million....". "According to some government lackey, a free and open internet made possible...." <<<<< That's what this file actually supports, and I'm underwhelmed at the weight of some government lackey's opinion. Besides that, it still doesn't name THIS company as THE company, the topic was the internet not the company nor product, the picture does not show Solar Roadways (neither company nor product), and while its OK for the Whitehouse to engage in POV and propaganda, that's not what we do so to stick to our principles we'd have to substitute the president's head with the mug of some government lackey, because that's who said it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
The text under the image could say, "while the president did not say these actual words himself, this did appear during his state of the union address". DreamFocus04:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
There are three issues.
(A) NONCOMPLIANCE/PROMOTION This use of the image would not comply with MOS:IMAGES which states that "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic." The image is "significantly and directly related" to our article net neutrality and it might be "significantly and directly related" to our article 2015 State of the Union Address, but that shouldn't be assumed without clearly explaining whether the ruffles from the WH website are a part of the SOTU address, or whether they are just flourishes and ruffles from one of the various outlets of coverage. But the image does not "significantly and directly relate" to the company in Idaho nor to their product, except to imply that someone at the Whitehouse is a fan. That borderline WP:PROMOTIONAL in my opinion.
(B) MISLEADING The image is misleading, because it is a strong-in-your-gut visual implication that Obama said these words yet our uploaded file's metadata credits them to "some government lackey". In good faith yet woeful inadequacy, DreamFocus has suggested a bit of lawyerly text to walk back the impact of the visual distortion. Most people don't care nearly as much about lawyer text as about imagery.... in fact, many just read the lead and look at the pictures! For the who do read the disclaimer, the damage will have already been done.
(C) ORIGINAL RESEARCH The government lackey's words describing what a free and open internet has done does not explicitly identify either this company or their approach. It's a reasonable guess that they meant THIS company, but that's still WP:OR using special knowledge that us editors have, specifically, we know that there aren't any other companies - we think - that meet that description.
(D) Hopefully I don't have to repeat my explanation of "what the issue is" a third time.
Whether included or not , I don't care. But, just for the record, the image is from the White House, it's their workproduct. It's not some other outlet. I think it is correct to attribute it to Obama; it's his home page. So, I have changed the words "government lackey" to "Barrack Obama" accordingly. GangofOne (talk) 08:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
This article is the perfect example of the type of article that shouldn't exist, seriously. No spec, no price, no availability, so delete this article until they can actually ship something instead of hot air and vaporware! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 06:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
What you say is quite reasonable, but in this case there are special circumstances that make this a useful article. There may be helpful lessons for others seeking SBIR handouts, and since this was the biggest Indiegogo response of all time (that fact alone is notable) all the backers will want to be kept up to date here on all the progress that is being made. GangofOne (talk) 06:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, they did announce just a few days ago that now that their Phase II prototype is finally done, they'll actually start installing public pilot projects around their hometown to test more stuff. They also got another grant from the FHWA for more tests.[1] So it's not like there's no progress. -- 2A02:810A:1140:878:0:0:0:3 (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't get this section at all. Are they talking about the total weight each panel can support ? If so, what does total vehicle weight have to do with that ? Presumably an entire vehicle is not going to be balanced on one panel. Instead, it should talk about pressures the panel can support and max pressures applied by, say, a heavy vehicle running over a stone on the panel, so it's weight is concentrated on a small area with a high pressure. (Note that asphalt might fail under high pressures, too, but if that just means the stone becomes embedded in the asphalt, that's no big deal, unlike a shattered solar panel.) Also, the link at the end doesn't seem to go anywhere related to the figures given. StuRat (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Page has serious credibility issues
As other editors have pointed out already, most of the references on the "Planned and Potential Capabilities" are made by solar roadways themselves(only one reference is from an external source) and not verified independent testing. Either 1) delete the unverified claims or 2) rephase the language to make it clear these are only claims out of a lab with no successful implementation. Fantastic claims requite equally fantastic references, not vague invocations of potential. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reiuji (talk • contribs) 12:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Article has been tagged as it is overly promotional in nature and repeats many of the claims of the company from their promotional materials which are not substantiated by independent sources.
Thanks! But... I'm moving the tag to the article itself - that's where it belongs per the template doc. (and IP, you should sign your post.) Jeh (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Ridonkulously generous to stupid idea
This page is enourmously biased in favour of this company, given the neutral position is somewhere between "outright scam" & "idiotic theorycrafting". Given the mass use of primary sources, wonder who's been editing. 89.240.134.224 (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Not just primary but first-party sources. The "technology" section is particularly bad as all but one or two of the references are to SR's own site. It also describes SR's plans and promises as if they were all definitely going to happen (see WP:NOTCRYSTAL). The first sentence even says the panels are "available" now. At the very least that section needs some improvement tags, not just PRIMARY but also for "advertising" and "future". Jeh (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The continual editing to make any actual criticism as vague as possible is also incredibly sketchy. E.g. Along the lines of "Dr Roy Spencer points out that using the energy they generate to melt snow is in complete contradiction to the physical law of conservation of energy" keeps getting edited to "Dr Roy Spencer criticized the claim that the solar panels in winter will use the energy they generate to melt snowfall." as if it's just someone with a PhD thinking it's difficult, rather than it explicitly violating one of the most well tested principles in all of reality.
77.98.17.0 (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
And now the completely unnecessary attempts at disparaging the very few people on this page that have criticised the scam. E.g. Claiming Roy Spencer is a detractor of man-made climate change which has no relation to the claim.
This page needs deleting. It is nothing more than lies pretending this scam idea isn't universally discredited by everyone with any knowledge of physics.
I agree with Safiel's recent edit comment: "Ineligible for PROD, previously kept at AfD, which was very lengthy and contentious, take to AfD if deletion sought, though I think gaining a consensus for deletion is probably unlikely". Furthermore I think deletion is unwarranted: There is a story to tell about SolarRoadways, but it must include WP:DUE attention to the criticism the proposal has attracted and to other negatives. The problems with the article can be solved but we have to be persistent and unified in challenging those who keep removing or watering-down the criticism. Jeh (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
As a start, I think that everything here that merely parrots SR's claims about what the panels will do, what features and functions they will incorporate, etc., need to be toned down considerably. This stuff fails WP:NOTCRYSTAL points 1 and 5. Jeh (talk) 05:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Last paragraph under history is incorrect and very misleading, doesn't reflect what the source states.
Solar roadways Didn't announce anything. Missouri DOT announced that it applied for a grant and hoped to CROWD fund solar roadways on a rest stop.
The statement in the article is a huge leap from that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.235.46.247 (talk) 22:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Considering how well known this is to be a scam by everyone with the slightest background in physics or electrical engineering, there should be atleast a small mention of this in the article. At the very least mentioning that it is physically impossible for it to ever be viable to put a solar panel flat on the floor rather than raised at angle.
82.42.233.172 (talk) 03:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
An IP address with no other edits ever, obviously the same guy as before. This month the American department of transportation posted about them on their government website. [2] Obviously they were convinced by the testing they did at various stages with their scientists. There is a criticism section already called "feasibility". DreamFocus04:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea whom you are referring to. And no, every person with the slightesg background in physics knows this is a scam, and has been debunked completely. The tiny feasibility section in this is nowhere near the amount it should be, and acts like this is an actual credible idea when it is well known to be a scam. Suggesting that the fact it is expensive and that there are only a few minor oppositions to this scam, rather than the truth that it is known to violate a huge number of well established physical laws is disingenuous at best. This article is plain and simply misleading, to the point of being a lie.
Of course. Because some random guy on the internet knows more than the government scientists who test things out before handing out money at each phase. DreamFocus19:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
There is a lot more than just some random.guys on the Internet that denounce this. Spend some time researching it and there are plenty of physicists that publicly denounce this. This is not arguable.
DreamFocus, would you care to link to the results found by the "government scientists who test things out"? If those reports exist, why aren't they linked from the company's site? Can you even tell us the name of the lab where these tests were done? That's not how it works. Jeh (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
What I linked to already, the transportation departments websites. Since Solar Roadways' proof-of-concept results were promising, we awarded a Phase II contract in 2011 to develop and test a prototype for a pavement made of solar panels. And Everyone was encouraged by the results of the initial prototype pavement testing, and we recently awarded Solar Roadways a follow-on Phase IIB contract to continue developing and testing this exciting innovation. They don't just toss out money for no reason, they have an approval process, and people examine things to verify all the information. DreamFocus21:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
That's not a report detailing test results. There's no evidence there of any tests or reports (or for that matter claims) from anyone except SolarRoadways. The "promising results" are simply what SolarRoadways reported when asking for their next grant. Jeh (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Really? So the government just takes their word for it, and doesn't have anyone look over the evidence before tossing over money? DreamFocus22:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I think the problem is that the gov agency doesn't itself employ scientists to tell it what is feasible and what isn't. They just see something that appears promising, and give them some money based on that. Note that they are nowhere near "going into production", where they would pay millions of dollars to have miles of roads made like this. Unfortunately, the money spent so far is likely wasted, yes, but it's hardly the only government agency to waste money. Perhaps some of the technology developed might have some limited application, like a strain gauge and flashing lights to indicate when a kid is crossing in the dark in a school zone. StuRat (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
@Dream Focus:, you were claiming earlier that there were "government scientists who test things out." Now you've switched to challenging whether I think they "look over the evidence." Well, I'm sure they do have some low-paid staffer "look over the evidence" (supplied by SolarRoadways with their grant application), but that's a far cry from the government conducting its own independent tests, which was your claim. If such tests had been performed there would be a publicly available detailed report - not just the p.r. blurb you linked - giving details of test conditions, energy output, etc. Where is it? Why hasn't SolarRoadways summarized it, linked to it, or provided ordering information?
The fact is that government agencies do hand out quite a lot of research money without doing their owh lab work or verification. Do you know that industry research lab managers and university professors spend a huge amount of their time writing grant proposals? Do you honestly think that the government employs their own scientists to try to duplicate the prior work of grant applicants - for tens of thousands of applications every year - before approving a grant for follow-on research? No. With a very few exceptions the US government does not employ their own scientists to do such work. What does happen is that some other group might apply for a grant to do the "can we replicate the results?" study. You know those exist because if you look at the references chain for later papers, they will be sure to reference the "replication" study.
I repeat: Where do you see SolarRoadways referencing results of independent tests - from anybody? Jeh (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence to your claim that the government just tosses out grant money without doing any actual research themselves to verify the claims being made? That they didn't actually test it out at the second and third stage, and verify what it could do so far, and agree to give additional funding? I find that rather difficult to believe. Rather ridiculous really. DreamFocus23:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, they do that much, I'm sure, but that doesn't tell them whether it has the potential to ever be a practical technology. There they seem to have just trusted the company, which was a mistake, in my opinion. StuRat (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
DF: You have it backwards. I don't have to prove a negative. You're the one making the claim that the government has done their own tests. That's a claim of existence. So you're the one who needs to prove it. Your "I don't believe they wouldn't" is not compelling. I repeat: Where do you see any reported results of US government testing of SolarRoadways' claims? Jeh (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Your assumption that the government thoroughly tests and verifies these claims scientifically before giving out money is unfounded. I myself was involved on a similar kind of research & development project that received 2 million in Federal funding, and frankly the project was impractical and doomed to failure at the start. All you need is the right connections to get your foot in the door and a good salesman to convince the bureaucrat (who is not a scientist or an engineer) that your project is a good investment. The bar is not that high. The politicians involved in giving out this money are more concerned about being able to say they "created jobs" (by giving away money to startups) than they are about getting a practical product out of it at the end. Even the engineer who lead the government testing (which, as far as I can tell, was limited to the traction test since I haven't seen Solar Roadways reference any other tests that require a government laboratory) basically said the idea was unrealistic. His words: "I'd say it's not very realistic to cover the entire highway system with these panels. ...If you don't reach for something, you'll never get there. Just the effort of doing something new creates byproducts." So basically, he doesn't think the idea is realistic, but maybe some practical ideas/byproducts will come out of this R&D process. Not exactly a ringing endorsement. By the way, the engineer's name is Scott Weaver and this is my source: [1]Nimrand (talk) 08:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Having filled plenty of R&D grant applications myself, I can confirm this is general practice. Screening is done at very high level, often by people who lack the required specific technical knowledge, mainly because anything else would be impractical. Everybody knows expectations are somewhat exaggerated from start and sometimes the point is merely "here's some money, show me how far you can get" to let people explore. I'll admit it is usually different when one already has a fully working prototype and asks for funding to turn it into a product, mainly polishing the implementation, dealing with large scale manufacture, etc, but this requires technical validation and a business plan, while these guys' TRL is extremely low (and this is not me guessing, but directly from the progress they show on their website). So is it possible to get money for something technically unfeasible? Yes. And for something economically insane? Absolutely. It happens every day. 138.131.177.63 (talk) 08:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
This article has been nothing but a Battleground since day 1 by anti-Solar Roadway proponents. Please do not contribute to that atmosphere by excessive tagging. Work on improving, not provoking. -- GreenC13:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I looked through the editing history and saw most of the battling being on your part. Furthermore, I just did a reference check on it, which I submit counts as effort to improve. Per that check, the article has serious problems, and removing the tags won't make the problems go away. Please don't remove them again - David Gerard (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
You still have not justified the use of the advert and peacock tag. I would like to fix the problem but I can't fix what is not apparent. At some point if you can't justify the tag it should be removed, and if you keep adding it back without a clear and actionable justification then we hold an RfC. Look forward to working with you to improve the article over the next weeks and months whatever is required. -- GreenC14:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any benefit to having those tags there at all. Where do you see any terms that qualify is WP:PEACOCK? Kindly list whatever sentence you see as having that problem. DreamFocus16:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Not my tag, but as I see it many statements aren't even facts but declaration of intentions.
Solar Roadway panels are planned to be available in two texture designs: a semi-smooth surface designed for light traffic, and a rougher surface for highways.
The firm claims brightness will remain acceptable even in daylight, and will adjust automatically
They also have the potential to weigh every truck in a weigh station's queue simultaneously.
etc
Sure, it's a fact they're actually saying they may be doing all those things in the future, but this is presented as a series of bullet points under "technology" when there isn't even a prototype with all that functionality. WP:PEACOCK is not unreasonable. 31.10.164.45 (talk) 18:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
NPOV dispute
Many technical claims about the capabilities of the system come from its own creators (most sources are www.solarroadways.com). Text should be rewritten to emphasize this ("according to...", "...claim...", etc) or independent sources should be used instead.
138.131.177.63 (talk) 07:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
It makes reading difficult when every sentence begins "According to Solar Roadways". It reads like a battleground and is tedious to read. It only needs to be done once at the start. The technology is still in R&D no one has a copy of the technology to test and even if it was an independent source they just got the numbers from SR anyway. -- GreenC13:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, in the same sense that killing is legal. That very same section says Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.. The spirit of this policy does not include what may well be seen as advertisement. In addition Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. I understand we're talking about vague distinctions here, but providing detail about an invention using exclusively the testimony of its inventors is well beyond this line.
Regarding style, I agree that readability is important, but it shouldn't come at the expense of accuracy or integrity. My main problem with current version is it uses way too many citations after each claim as if they were supported by different sources, when in fact they all come from the same website, which gives an illusion of reliability. My suggestion is to pack most critical claims in a single block with a single citation, or add secondary sources. 31.10.164.45 (talk) 18:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
By the same argument, I can create a site saying anything I like about some (bogus) scientific proposal, then reference my own site for the Wikipedia article. Clearly this wouldn't be acceptable, so why does SR get a pass? 86.188.68.55 (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
feasibility
How is this section so lacking? This thing only exists as a the-owners-are-pretending-to-be-retarded-enough-to-not-be-an-intentional-scam. What kinda dodgy editing is involved in supressing this? The article should make very clear that the idea is modern day snake oil. 79.74.4.64 (talk) 19:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
A huge part of the criticism section references video blogs by Phil Mason. A blog might be a good source from an expert (c.f. Roy Spencer blog post immediately above), but Mason is a biochemist, surely not any sort of relevant expert. Even if he seems to have a point, is there a better source for these criticisms? - David Gerard (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Then just delete it! Just do it, fix whatever you see is broken, and if someone disagrees they'll restore and you can discuss it. -- GreenC14:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Literally the section above this you note the page's "battleground" nature; you're now advising I go into battleground mode. I suggest that discussion first might be suitable - David Gerard (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
WP:BRD is "battleground mode"? The Phil Mason video blog is a self-published hit piece by a non solar-expert for a popular audience with no supporting tertiary sources. Mason is not used as a source anywhere else on Wikipedia (What Links Here: Phil Mason). You still have not provided a justification for the advert and peakcock tags. -- GreenC15:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree it should be removed. You got a lot of know-it-alls on YouTube giving their opinions about everything imaginable, it doesn't mean they are notable. DreamFocus16:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
So now, there's no criticism at all, and this actually presents itself as a plausible project according to the main article, when a basic grasp of mathematics shows that it's never going to succeed. You'll note, as well, that GreenC is against all edits unless they happen make the project look more plausible 86.188.68.55 (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
This page was previously at least fairly balanced (despite being hugely over-positive to an obvious scam), now it reads just like an advert written by Solar Roadways. Phil Mason is certainly a relevant expert, this is not something that requires a 'solar-expert' (whatever that is supposed to be), this is something that anyone with a background in physics realises is poppycock. Your complaint that the source is aimed for a popular audience is something that is impossible to do better, no sources aimed for people with a background in the subject will exist, as it is so blatantly fantasy. Asking for an article aimed at specialists showing why solar roadways is nonsense is like asking for an article showing why the Earth isn't held on the back of a tortoise aimed at specialists.
77.98.22.147 (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
It's a scam? I don't know maybe. Phil Mason does crank out one video out after the next on everything from creationism, religion, and feminism. His videos are self-published infotainment which earn him money from YouTube views. You put 'solar expert' in quotes as if it doesn't exist - there are experts in solar technology and Phil Mason is not one. A background in physics doesn't make him a relevant expert in every field that involves physics, which is nearly every field in the world. Phil Mason has never been used as a reliable source anywhere else on Wikipedia despite his many videos on every topic imaginable. BTW if you think SolarRoadways is a scam I will be the first to add it to the article if you can produce a reliable third-party source that isn't self-published. But that source will be increasingly hard to find now the technology is in real world trials. -- GreenC16:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Mason is a relevant expert as he has a background in physics, and an absolute bare minimum knowledge of basic physics is all that is needed to know that this is utter nonsense.
No there is no such thing as a solar expert. There are people that are experts in certain aspects of solar technology, sure.
"if you can produce a reliable third-party source that isn't self-published. But that source will be increasingly hard to find now the technology is in real world trials"
I put it to you that you will not find a reliable third-party source that isn't self published that supports it either. Again, this sort of thing is like asking for an article showing why the Earth isn't held on the back of a tortoise. People that have any knowledge of the field dismiss this out of hand, as it is clearly absurd, not write articles to try to determine if it is or isn't.
How is the large number of sources that are purely first-party, self published advertisements by the company that is gaining money from the product allowed, but an impartial scientist is not? Even if you make the argument that Phil Mason shouldn't be a source because he's not an expert purely in the field discussed.. He's considerably closer to an expert in that field than authors of any of the other sources provided are.
Even the sources that have been allowed for criticism are hugely underplayed in the text, for example "Roy Spencer commented that there are more practical places to put solar panels (such as roofs) and that solar panels in roadways couldn't be kept clean enough to be effective." is clearly hugely underplaying Roy Spencer's actual stance (in fact, just the title of the piece shows it to be more than this quote does). Also, why is Roy Spencer permitted but Phil Mason isn't? The only difference is that one is on YouTube, but first-party adverts on YouTube for Solar Roadways is a permitted source, so why is a critical look at them by an impartial expert on YouTube not?
Mason is a relevant expert as he has a background in physics - meaning he is a relevant expert in everything that involves physics ie. everything. According to his Wikipedia bio his background is in chemistry and his career is in food science. An impartial scientist - he is not acting like a scientist, he earns money from infotainment videos, they are not peer reviewed or published, he provides no counter-views or contrary information to his narrative. He reaches a conclusion from the start then backfills with reasons while ignoring anything contrary (inductive vs. deductive). The other sources provided are reliable sources ie. they are published in newspapers, magazines etc with editorial oversight. Criticism are hugely underplayed - We don't talk-up criticisms because we agree with them, the criticism section carries appropriate WP:WEIGHT for the balance of the article otherwise it ends up being a hit piece. -- GreenC18:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
That sounds plausibly good, actually, as a relevant expert blog. Want to work up something, with easily-checkable references to specific times in the videos? Are there scripts or transcripts available? - David Gerard (talk) 11:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
That's entirely future-looking speculation from 2011; it's not clear what, if anything, it would add of encyclopedic value - David Gerard (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Deletion
It has been well over two years now of this article being clearly non-neutral and reading as an advertisement, with almost the entire article based purely on what the company claims in their adverts. There has been no improvement over two years and little reason to believe there will be in the future. 77.98.22.147 (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Hey folks, I would like to remove some of these tags from the top of the article. It's basically an expression of dislike for the technology and not the article itself, as far as I can see. If you can not list actionable words and/or sentences but continue to edit war by re-inserting the tags I see no other option to open an RfC and bring broader attention to this article and company. Look forward to hearing from you. -- GreenC01:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
It still comes across as fundamentally promotional and non-neutral in nature. There's whole excessively wordy paragraphs on announcements, for example. I don't see how you could say "I would like to remove some of these tags" despite the nature of the article content. Claiming that anyone opposed to this is just a hater is not going to win people over - David Gerard (talk) 09:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
I just gave it a run through, removing a couple of bits of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:PROMO. The Conway trial in particular is blatantly both - if you read the ref, you'll see that even the MoDOT funding isn't nailed down per the ref, and the referenced article is substantially a promotional puff piece for the company, just running their claims quoted and unverified. If you really couldn't see that on reading it before you posted the above, I question your judgement on the tags - David Gerard (talk) 09:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Well I don't agree with your assessment of the sources ("a promotional puff piece"), and there is nothing wrong with reporting a trial previously reported in reliable sources, we are not asserting anything which is where you get confused ("running their claims"). But none of that matters, you made edits, I'll remove the tags and if you want to add some or all back we can take it from there. -- GreenC20:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Well since you reverted again with generalized complaints that no one could possibly edit to satisfy, unless another editor steps in here, I don't see any option but an RfC. -- GreenC01:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
@David Gerard: What are the remaining issues? The article has been scraped pretty clean of junk at this point, I believe, and it contains a relatively factual telling of the funding history. The only thing I see that resembles fluff at this point might be the third paragraph in the history section about the Indiegogo funding, but it's not that bad. —Torchiesttalkedits03:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Torchiest, unless we get an actionable response from Gerard, I think either we need to revert the tags, and let him figure out how he can get consensus to restore them; or I see no option but start an RfC, which will tie up many editors for a month. At this point the tags appear to be general complaints about the technology itself with no specific complaints about the sources or text of the article. -- GreenC15:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
77.98.22.147 has no edits outside this topic. Could it be the same editor who was banned before, who keeps coming back here with different IPs at times making the same arguments, determined to destroy this article? DreamFocus11:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Based on the comment below about "2 years" and "every attempt to improve it", yes it does look like this individual has been here before under different IPs. -- GreenC16:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
AGF. RfC would be ideal yes, considering this article has been in a dreadful state for over 2 years and every attempt to improve it just results in reverting and violations of AGF. 77.98.22.147 (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Your inability/unwillingness to identify specific words or sources that violate Wikipedia policy and guidelines, is a big part of the problem. Why you would not win an RfC. You are more interested in prosecuting your unsourced opinion the technology is a scam. Which is disruptive behavior. -- GreenC16:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Awards section and POV tag
I have no problem with the awards section. However if removing it will help make the article appear more neutral to every IP drive-by editor who saw the "Solar Freakin Roadways" video and now believes Solar Roadways is a scam, posting every complaint tag they can find, I don't mind experimenting with temporarily removing. I do question the use of the POV tag. Which words? -- GreenC15:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
[3] If anything else got an award in a major science magazine like Popular Science, it'd be listed. The World Technology Award seems to not be anything significant. The General Electric Ecomagination was misspelled, but they have spent billions of dollars on this initiative General_Electric#Environmental_initiatives so an award from it seems notable. EE Times perhaps is not a notable enough magazine to mention. But two of the awards should stay there. DreamFocus16:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
If anything else got an award like that, IME it'd only be listed as an attempt at WP:PUFFERY. I've been dredging the spammy depths of Wikipedia lately, and it's a standard way to make a blatantly promotional article try to look more important. So we should take care before doing so here - David Gerard (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
My concern is that (a) the awards themselves are not notable (i.e. don't have their own articles) and (b) that spammy "award" sections are a staple of promotional articles. If the awards themselves are sufficiently notable, or have even been noted in good RSes other than by the awarding organisation (and I don't mean reprinted press releases) then that should go in. These two sound like they might be notable - have RSes talked about these awards themselves at length? - David Gerard (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Search Wikipedia for "awards" and you find 672,375 articles have "awards" listed in them. Its standard to list accomplishments of anyone or anything. Certainly not puffery. They also quote magazines for reviews for films, books, and video games. Popular Science has been published for 144 years, and has over a million active subscribers even now, and has won awards for its "journalistic excellence". So if they say its One of 7 "Best of What's New" Engineering category in the "100 Greatest Innovations of the Year-2014", then that's worth mentioning. DreamFocus17:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Agree. An award doesn't need its own article to be worth including, if it's from a notable magazine that is also a reliable source. And of course Popular Science is both. —Torchiesttalkedits20:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Roy Spencer
Is it necessary to quote Roy Spencer? His speciality is meteorology, but even among scientists, he is an enormously controversial figure. He is not merely a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming as his bio suggests, he actually authors much of the material for the Cornwall Alliance (a group which claims climate change cannot have adverse impacts while God is in control). Is there a more qualified person we could referecne instead of Spencer's zany blog? — TPX21:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
A lot of us already agreed in the previous discussion to get rid of him, and most of his stuff was eliminated, but that one sentence was overlooked apparently. I have removed it. DreamFocus17:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Is the Daily Caller a reliable source?
I'm reading through this article and checking some of the sources and I noticed that there was an article from a site called The Daily Caller as a source. Looking over the Daily Caller article, I noticed very polarizing and sensational word choices, not characteristic of a news article written to the Associated Press Style standards, which include Consistency, Clarity, Accuracy, and Brevity, and thus isn't ethical reporting.
"Solar Road Is ‘Total And Epic’ Failure, 83% Of Its Panels Break In A Week" is not an objective headline, it's an opinion, but the article is not marked as such. The article seems to repeatedly cite videos belonging to a fellow on Youtube whose "about" section is completely devoid of identifying information. At one point the article claims the individual is a scientist, but he seems to just be a guy on the internet with an opinion. Due to his lack of provided information, we have no idea of knowing if this individual is actually an expert in their field or not.
Another statement in the article cites a source as "an electrical engineer," but fail to identify who the engineer is and why they are an expert on the subject. They instead link to a blog video from another blog that spends 20+ minutes lambasting the idea with sarcasm and personal attacks. The sources in this news source are by no means reliable expert sources.
The financial numbers given in the Daily Caller article do not align with the cost listed in the Wikipedia articles, meaning either the numbers on the the Wikipedia article are wrong or the news agency is reporting wrong. This news article attacks other information outlets for having reported positively on the concept in the past. Finally, for what it's worth, Snopes has repeatedly debunked The Daily Caller for misinformation.
I propose the text "None of the 30 panels generated any power after installation,[16] 75% did not light up at installation and four more failed after rainfall.[17]" be replaced with something along the lines of, "A manufacturing error resulted in the 30 panels not generating electricity after installation. The panels are being replaced." All of this can be discerned from source 16 and this allows people to make their own decisions. --76.254.2.160 (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Indeed - Daily Caller is political advocacy journalism somewhere to the right of Breitbart, and neither mainstream nor a technology source. There are possibly things it could be a WP:RS for, but this doesn't strike me as one either - David Gerard (talk) 08:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
