Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sustainable biofuel/1
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Consensus to delist. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
A week ago, I posted on talk that "The lead is too short and the article was previously tagged for OR, although without a proper explanation." In addition the article doesn't seem to have been updated much since its 2008 promotion. It currently does not mention any developments after 2015. I really do not know much about the topic, is the article salvageable or not? (t · c) buidhe 08:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- It would require a ton of work, and the perspectives on biofuels have shifted pretty radically in the last 10 years: both the viability of biofuel economically and environmentally. Most research I have seen recommends shifting away from using cropland for animal feed and these kinds of mass industrial uses, in order to promote reforestation and carbon sequestration. Also, the oil price crash this year, and the increased viability of renewables for primary energy production, reduces the need for biofuel economically -- and most of the use of these materials for other kinds of energy is for direct biomass energy. Just doing a brief scan of the article, I only think someone could bring it back up to that quality with some significant expertise and research time. @Clayoquot and Femkemilene: who have more contextual knowledge on energy, Sadads (talk) 13:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- I do not think the article salvageable in a reasonable amount of time. I've updated quite a few of these articles and almost always they needed a complete rewrite. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Looks a very tough subject - not volunteering - @Genetics4good: - perhaps you have expertise - any thoughts? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- I share the sentiments of Femke and Chidgk1 above. It's a very difficult topic to cover globally and neutrally and to keep up to date. The main thing that needs work is to use up-to-date secondary or tertiary sources that critically assess the maturity and scalability of proposed solutions to problems. It is very easy to get a journalist or researcher to write an article saying that such and such an idea or plant is "promising" or "being researched". Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:02, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- I do not think the article salvageable in a reasonable amount of time. I've updated quite a few of these articles and almost always they needed a complete rewrite. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
@Buidhe: I hope you are well. Are you able to complete this reassessment? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Chidgk1 Hi, thanks for your comment. Unfortunately, community good article reassessments can't be closed by their initiator, we need to wait for an uninvolved editor to come along. (t · c) buidhe 21:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- I tried to close this thing according to the instructions at the bottom of "community reassessment" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment but presumably I should have used some kind of bot because it still says "result pending" above. Sorry for confusion as I have only ever closed individual reassessments and that was a long time ago. Could someone who knows this process close it properly? Chidgk1 (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- I've closed it now, albeit a bit late. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- I tried to close this thing according to the instructions at the bottom of "community reassessment" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment but presumably I should have used some kind of bot because it still says "result pending" above. Sorry for confusion as I have only ever closed individual reassessments and that was a long time ago. Could someone who knows this process close it properly? Chidgk1 (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)