Wikipedia:Peer review/Byron Nuclear Generating Station/archive1

Byron Nuclear Generating Station

I've listed this article for peer review because…

the coverage of U.S. nuclear power stations on Wikipedia is woefully inadequate and this article, which was just expanded, is really the first attempt on Wikipedia to cover nuclear power stations in the Unites States in any kind of encyclopedic and detailed manner. My main concern is about any missing data, any technical information or data that an expert would be appalled at seeing missing. The article was written by a non-expert with some background in chemistry and nuclear power through the military and through university. Any opinions would be appreciated.

Thanks,

IvoShandor 23:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 17:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really need a review or two here. I will return the favor. Thanks. IvoShandor 17:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very good so far. I am also not an expert but here are some thoughts for improvement / clarification:
- Images: there are four images which are basically of the cooling towers. Is there any way you could crop one or more of them to get more detail of the reactor buildings (or somehow get a closeup)? The black and white image in the infobox has some detail of the reactor containment structures, or the bottom color image from August 2005 is decent. Also, can these image captions be tweaked a bit? Two are just Byron Nuclear Generating Station and the date. Perhaps add "as seen from the southeast" or "as seen from near Dinkytown, IL" or "this is close to the station as one can approach now". Also would it be possible to add an image of the basic operation of the PW reactors such as Image:PressurizedWaterReactor.gif?
- General - can you add metric units where none are now (2 miles west of the Rock River... was the only one I found). Be consistent about the names - is it "Unit 1" or "Unit One" (same for Unit 2 / Two)? Is everything in the lead found in the main body of the article? For example power to northern Illinios (capitalization?) and Chicago?
- History - Can you add directions as well as distances (relative to Rockford, Bryon, etc)? What was the third group opposing construction? What will happen when the licenses expire (assume it will be decommissioned, maybe add a sentence or two on possiblities there).
- Facilities and output - are the cooling towers numbered? If so, could this be added to a caption? What is the volume (capacity) of the cooling towers? Any information on the temperature of water entering and leaving the cooling towers (or the max. temp. at which the water can be discharged into the Rock River)?
- Groundwater contamination - Braidwood contamination is explained, Dresden is not. Maybe mention here how many total nuclear power plants there are in Illinois for context (three problem plants is all, half, a few?).
- Safety (and Security) - would it help to start this section with a few sentences on the NRC and its inspection levels (green, white, others?)? Would it also make sense to combine the Security section with this one, as it is fairly short now? Can you give any information on security before 9/11? How large was the security zone? Is there really no security zone there now? Can this be clarified?
Finally, I will see if I can do a few copyedits that are easier just to do (being BOLD and all that) than to describe here. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woo. A peer review. I will incorporate your suggestions Ruhr. Thanks. IvoShandor 22:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I finished the copyedits and found that there were two broken refs in the safety section. I think I fixed them, but you should check (the first broken ref caused info about the NRC color coded inspection categories to not show up). I have a couple other suggestions - there are a fair number of entries in the infobox that are now blank which seem to have information in the article, so the infobox could have more info in it. There also seems to be some repetitiveness in the groundwater contamination section. Were there two Feb. 2006 reports? If not, can there be some consolidation there? Also, the new law is described in the sentence before the Illinois EPA action (in terms of Byron and Braidwood), then the whole new law is described again in more detail in the next paragraph, with reference to Dresden too. Again, there is probably a more efficient way to tell this. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]