Talk:Sustainable energy/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 20:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Links

Prose

Lede

Sustainable energy is energy - well, duh. I feel like a topic like this would be better not having a bolded header. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You'd prefer "Energy is considered sustainable if it is produced and used so ..."? I think both sentences are equally good, and not having bolding risks new editors changing it to something less good. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I further revised this to avoid the "Sustainable energy is energy" awkwardness. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's an odd para break in the lede. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done, FemkeMilene (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is similar to the concepts of green energy and clean energy - are these subjects something we could have an article on them, or is this what this article talks about? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've been staring at this for a while. Clean and green energy are both terms that are used even more loosely than sustainable energy. I don't think we should have an article on them, because a are so vaguely defined. Their usage is closest to the sustainable energy (minus the social aspects, but then sustainable energy is quite often discussed minus the social aspect). I cannot find any source defining them to support the statement in the lead. Clayoquot, any thoughts on this? FemkeMilene (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Femkemilene, I've struggled with this stuff too. Having "clean energy" and "green energy" redirect here is the right decision, because approximately zero high-quality reliable sources define the terms, and they way they're used in common parlance is a clear subset of sustainable energy. How about if we just delete the sentence? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the policy on this isn't completely clear (not a synonym or very obvious variant, nor a minor sub topic as the examples in WP:R#PLA), so I agree we delete the sentence per WP:V. I will add a summary of the definition section you wrote to replace the sentence. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have so much of an issue with there being a sentence (perhaps "sometimes linked to green energy"...), but I do think they shouldn't be bolded. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is the refs in the lede neccesary? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

removed two of them, left the one about nuclear, as that is the most volatile part of this article. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have since added a couple more refs for some controversial statements. The current guidance in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Citations seems to give quite a bit of flexibility for editor consensus to decide when refs are necessary. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't we have a link for renewable energy? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

linked. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

carbon pricing, phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies. - "and the"Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done, FemkeMilene (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The energy transition to meet the world's needs for electricity, heating, cooling, and power for transport in a sustainable way is widely considered to be one of the greatest challenges facing humanity in the 21st century. ^{[according to whom?]}

Clayoquot, I find sentences like this difficult. One of the sources is a blog, which should probs be deleted. The other source states this as a fact, with no indication of 'widely believed'. Do you have ideas/time to deal with this one? FemkeMilene (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've been thinking about this one. The blog source is published on the World Bank website and is written by experts, so I'd say it is a medium-quality RS. This claim is big but it's not controversial, so we don't need super-strong sourcing IMHO. Some options: 1) Omit the "widely considered" and state it as a fact, 2) Reword it to water down the claim and state it as a fact. If we do the latter, I might at some point suggest a quote to go beside it. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

stream of conciousness warning I'm still thinking about a logic for that entire paragraph. What I would like to do is a problem statement and then the political response. I feel like the problem statement might better fit as the third paragraph however.. Anyway, with the RfC about air pollution, the paragraph may become quite a bit longer than the others, and this is the type of sentence that may be condensed..

I also wonder whether a statement like this could benefit from a more modern source? If you want, I can check my books on whether they say something similar in their introduction. Agree the claim in not controversial. FemkeMilene (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that sounds good. I'm going to implement option 1 in the meantime and see if that sticks. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

nearly a billion people still lack access to electricity, - this might need to be explained why this in particular has to do with sustainable energy. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an explanation of the definition to the first paragraph. Does this solve the issue? FemkeMilene (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Consider adding that sustainable energy environmental aspects also include "the production of hazardous waste and toxic emissions" to the first paragraph (it's currently under Definitions and background section). Sustainable energy is a very comprehensive topic and the lead could make that more clear I think. Bogazicili (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will probably add a condensed version of this to the third paragraph, depending on the outcome of the RfC. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

General

The TOC is quite long. Consider {{limit TOC}} Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If we bring the limit down to only level-1 headings, the TOC doesn't have much function I don't think... I've reduced the amount of items by 2 (energy storage now under 'dealing with variable sources', instead of the same level) and implemented your suggestion to merge background with definition. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Definitions has two brackets. Could we not just have this as a paragraph? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I rather like the bullet point here, as they have the function of emphasising these aspects. Happy to be overruled here if would be against the manual of style.

Definitions could probably be part of the background section Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done FemkeMilene (talk) 19:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's refreshing to see an article so well explain the background. Usually GANs don't have much explaining the concept. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :). We worked hard on it. FemkeMilene (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The quote in Nuclear power seems a bit out of place. Could we not paraphrase? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. It was already mentioned in the preceding paragraph, so removed altogether. Cloud200, could you add the page number so that we can verify the information? And the publication location? FemkeMilene (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the infobox about half way down the page?Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uncomfortable compromise between people that don't like it and people that do. I'm neutral in the discussion. What do you think? FemkeMilene (talk) 19:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By "infobox" are you referring to the Template:Sustainable energy? This is a navigation template rather than an infobox, although it's shaped kind of like an infobox. I moved it out of the lede because it doesn't summarize the topic, it just sends the reader to other articles. I am not sure if anyone actually likes it. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, either in the lede or not at all on this one. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Neutral to putting it back into the lede. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
and support for electric vehicle use.[138][136] - reforder. I didn't see any other of these. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done, FemkeMilene (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainable development has an image that is causing a lot of whitespace at the bottom. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Solved by the merge of background and definition. That paragraph still needs some tweaking in its new place. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You may consider adding clean cooking to "Heating and cooling" section as well, and maybe rename the section to "Heating, cooking and cooling". Heating and cooking seems to be related [1] Bogazicili (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your suggestion. These follow the sectors as defined by the IEA and REN21, and I prefer to stick to that. I believe cooking is well covered in the background statement. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review meta comments

I'll begin the review as soon as I can! If you fancy returning the favour, I have a list of nominations for review at WP:GAN and WP:FAC, respectively. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these if you get time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- A few comments above. Placed on hold. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  I believe everything has been addressed. Happy to do more if you have more ideas to improve the article. I'm launching a RfC this week on air pollution in the lede to resolve the edit warring spat of 19-21 March. Let me know whether that one needs to be resolved for the stability criterion. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I suggest leaving the review suspended for another week. Anything related to air pollution is still being heavily edited - for some reason air pollution is more controversial than nuclear energy, government policies, climate change, and gender equity combined. Lee, I feel you have had the misfortune of being the dinner guest who arrives just as a family fight erupts in the kitchen. Sorry about that! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - No issue. I think we are pretty much there. But happy to wait for the final read through for when you are ready. Drop me a ping. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lee Vilenski:, the article is ready for a final read through and I've asked the other editors to pause making new additions and potentially-controversial edits until you finish. Thanks in advance Lee! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - - I've made one change to the lede - they should be a max of four paras, otherwise all seems fine. Passing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you for all the patience :). FemkeMilene (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]