Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of power stations in Sri Lanka/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of power stations in Sri Lanka[edit]

List of power stations in Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Rehman 01:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page shows the most comprehensive list of power stations in Sri Lanka, something that is [oddly] not found on a single source anywhere on the internet or offline. The list is rich with content, referencing, pictures, and a map. I believe this should pass FL. Rehman 01:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's so quiet in here... Rehman 12:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

  • "while the renewable energy sector consists of mostly of privately-run plants" Repetition of "of"
  • "2,115MW (53.8%) was from thermal" In my view, the fuel used - gas or coal etc - is more significant than the technology.
  • There is only one coal source in the country. And thermal is the most common (and only) term used locally. Rehman 14:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fossil fuel section - no figures for the percentage and MW for different fuels and no columns in the table for this.
  • Sorry, I don't understand this point... Rehman 14:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coal is 900+500=1,1400MW, which is 35.6% of the total of 3932MW. Oil is 2115-1400=715MW, which is 18.2%. Gas currently zero, although you say there are plans to introduce it. I think these figures should be stated. Personally, I would have separate tables for coal and oil, but this is of course up to you. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added the figures to the lead section. The tables were separate when this list was created a long time ago. It was changed for two reasons, one because there will only be two entries in the coal table, and two because the local energy industry always collectively identifies all fossil-fuel plants as thermal power stations. You cannot find separated list anywhere on local publications. Hence the table was merged to reflect a more locally recognizable style. Rehman 09:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly disagree with merging oil and coal. The fact that local sources make it more difficult to find the information which is most important for international readers is no reason for Wikipedia to do so. You have a separate table for solar, which has two power stations and insignificant capacity, and not for coal which is over a third of capacity. I would also suggest you have a separate table giving the MW for each power source and its percentage share of the whole. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • By "You cannot find separated list anywhere on local publications", I meant that they are always collectively identified, not that info about them are hard to find. Rehman 00:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hydroelectricity played a very significant role in the national installed power capacity since it was rapidly introduced in the 1950s–1990s." It is unclear whether this refers to the current situation - if it does, then I think you need "Hydroelectricity has played"
  • On my computer the list of hydroelectric stations is pushed below the images, created a large blank space.
  • I will try to see if this can be fixed... It may be one of those cases where the table wont be perfect on all resolutions... Rehman 14:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does nameplate capacity mean?
  • What does the 'segment' column in hydroelectric refer to?
  • I have added a brief explanation. Basically, they are three regions which the government has created for hydropower development. Rehman 14:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be better to change the heading from "segment" to "region" as your explanation refers to regions. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to "Region". Rehman 09:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No geolocation for hydroelectric stations under construction, and none for any of the dams.
  • The physical locations of the power stations are not yet disclosed. Rehman 14:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • But you have a column for the location of power stations. Should this be location of water source? If so, the missing locations of the ones under construction are given in the separate articles about them. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the water source and power station are not always the same. They could be located large distances (dozens of kilometres) apart. The sub articles states the coordinates for the water source/dam, not the power plant. Rehman 09:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to be missing my point. You say above "The physical locations of the power stations are not yet disclosed." yet you have a column headed "Geo-location of power station" Dudley Miles (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm referring to the two plants under construction. The power plant details of those are still not disclosed, but the water body is known. Hence those two fields under "Geo-location of power station" are blank. Rehman 00:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the commissioning date given for hydroelectric and not for other types?
  • Commission dates (for non hydro) are very hard to find, and the published dates are often conflicting with other sources. I was considering if to remove the hydro dates (to be in line with others)... What do you think? Rehman 14:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would personally remove them, but other editors may disagree.Dudley Miles (talk) 18:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm... I personally feel that it would be a bad move to remove information for the sake of decoration, but lets see if anyone else feel this should be removed... Rehman 09:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after numerous wrongdoings and hidden political dealings surfaced" "wrongdoings" is colloquial and vague.
  • I chose that word from the referenced news linked. I have changed it to "misconducts". Hope that's better. Rehman 14:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The last privately owned first-come, first-served style wind farm projects, the Pollupalai and Vallimunai Wind Farms, were completed in late 2014, by when operations in the industry was ceased by presidential order.[" What are "first-come, first-served style wind farm projects"? Also "by when" is ungrammatical - and you say the industry was closed down and then give a list of operational stations.
  • I'm trying to say that the Pollupalai and Vallimunai Wind Farms are the newest/last wind farms that were commissioned. I did some changes to the wordings, but I'm unsure if it gives out the correct meaning. Also, industry was closed down for new projects. Rehman 14:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "when operations in the industry was ceased until further notice" This implies that the whole industry has been closed down. Maybe "when the construction of new wind farms was suspended further notice" Does the closure affect the Mannar Island proposal? This should be made clear. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. I've added as "when the construction of new privately-owned wind farms were suspended until further notice", as that only applied to the private sector (the Mannar project was/is not affected). Thanks! Rehman 09:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The last privately owned first-come, first-served style wind farm projects" You still have not explained what "first-come, first-served style" means. If there are no new private projects being approved why not delete it and just say "The last private sector wind farm projects"? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In first-come-first-serve, if a particular developer submits an application for a particular patch of land, the gov assigns that land to that developer. Another developer cannot develop on the same patch of land. I will add an explanation to this later today or tomo (it's 06:35 now, need to head to work soon). If you wish to add yourself, please feel free. Also, they are not the last projects. Wind projects will be back online (the stopping of projects is only temporary). Rehman 00:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think more work is needed on this list. The information is limited compared with - for example - List of power stations in England, and inconsistent between different categories. For example, you give nearest city for thermal but not for other types. The type of fuel for thermal stations is crucial information which needs to be given. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nearest city is included for thermal power stations because, locally, most of these thermal stations are also commonly called by the names of their closest city. This is not the case for other types. Also, the list is maintained in a summarized type to avoid being stretched too far causing multiple devises to not display properly (such as the white space you mentioned earlier). I'm using a 1920px wide display, and it is already almost the widest it can comfortably be. For fuel, I have added a sentence explaining that all thermal plants run on fuel oil, except for Lakviyaja and Sampur.
  • Thanks for the feedback Dudley Miles. I have responded to each point above with an indent. Rehman 14:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think most points are covered now. However, a column for geolocation of hydro water sources would be helpful. Separate tables for coal and oil are, in my view, crucial. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 21:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Giants2008

Oppose – Welcome to FLC, Rehman. The list you have worked on is certainly unique, and there is a lot of potential here. However, there are several issues remaining, which need to be addressed if this is to have a chance at promotion.

  • The start of the lead is a variant of the "This is a list of XXX"-type openings, which have been discouraged at FLC for years. The lead doesn't have anything on how many power stations there are, so that's one option for leading off the article.
Working on it... Will update here again. Rehman 13:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I'm kind of lost on this. If you have any ideas before me, please feel free to make the change, and I shall join in. Else, will try my best to do it within the next couple of days. Rehman 14:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, I don't see anything in the lead about how many power stations are in Sri Lanka, which feels like a good topic for a summary sentence that could start a list like this. A relevant statistic or definition is usually a good way to begin a list article, if one is having trouble thinking of an opening. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Working on it... Rehman 23:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Is it better? Rehman 10:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bold link in the introduction should be removed, per the Manual of Style.
Unbolded. Rehman 13:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The hyphen in "privately-run" should be removed.
Removed. Rehman 13:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Working on it... Will update here again. Rehman 13:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Giants2008, I have updated the first table (fossil fuel) to experiment. All seems good, except for the background colour in the row headers. Do you know how to override that? Rehman 02:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of a way to override the darkening of the rows off the top of my head, but it hasn't been called a problem in other FLCs. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, it doesn't seem to be a big issue anyway. Rehman 14:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accessibility guidelines also state that colored items in tables should have matching symbols. In this case, I think it would be better to remove the colors altogether, since they appear to duplicate the purpose of the Status columns. If you want to keep them, please at least consider removing the colors from some of the columns that are not directly related to the status; you could probably just have that column and the first one, rather than adding symbols to everything.
Working on it... Will update here again. Rehman 13:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I get your point on the colours and what MOS:DTT says. The reason I added the colours to the whole row is because it makes it much easier to identify operational/decommissioned power stations when sorting by Ownership, Name, City, or Capacity. The user does not need to look left-and-right each time. I think this is quite helpful, but if it negatively impacts passing FL, then we can take it off altogether. Waiting for your reply. Rehman 02:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that really needs to be changed. We can't be making too many exceptions to the access guidelines because of inconveniences that they cause, or we may invite everyone to make edits that are not generally recommended. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I went ahead and updated all the tables. I think it should be okay now. Rehman 14:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fossil-fuel: "after the completion of the Sampur Power Station in late 2017, which is being...". Since the last bit is meant to refer to the station and not the year, some rearranging is in order. Try making a change to "after the late 2017 completion", which requires the least work elsewhere.
Changed. Rehman 13:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another removable hyphen in "privately-owned". Also, there's one in the next section, along with one in Wind power.
Removed all. Rehman 13:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "except Lakvijaya and Sampur, which runs on coal." "runs" → "run", since there are two of them.
Done. Rehman 13:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add "to" in "the government has decided not renew...".
Done. Rehman 13:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hydroelectric: "when further thermal power stations was introduced in 2010." "was" → "were".
Done. Rehman 13:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Further information of each power station...". "of" should probably be "about" or "on".
Done. Changed to "on". Rehman 13:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are geo-locations possible for the two entries without them?
Unfortunately not. They are not disclosed yet, as explained to Dudley above. Rehman 13:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Solar power: I'm not sure if "constructions" should be plural here.
Changed to singular. Rehman 13:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wind power: "are Windforce and Senok, which currently owns 7 and 3 separate wind farms respectively". "owns" should be singular here.
Done. Rehman 13:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The other companies in the market includes...". Same issue with "includes" here.
Changed to singular. Rehman 13:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • All references from printed publications such as newspapers should have their publishers italicized, which can be done be changed the publisher= parameter in the cite templates to work=. I count references 11, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, and 25 as needing such fixes, and there may be more that I missed.
Updated. Some of the news references does not do printed publications. Rehman 13:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 18 needs a publisher listed.
Done. Rehman 13:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I like to offer support for topics that are different from what FLC normally sees, but there are simply too many prose and table issues right now. If you can fix them and satisfy Dudley, though, I would likely strike my oppose. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Giants2008. Thanks for the input. I have responded to each point above. Rehman 13:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The new intro looks much better. However, in "with a smaller share from by small hydro facilities", "by" should be removed. Do that and make separate tables for coal and oil stations as Dudley suggested, and you can consider me in the support column. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Giants2008. Done. Is it better? Rehman 23:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Don't start the article with "The following page lists...." we don't have featured articles which start "The following article ...." do we?
Working on it, as per Giants2008's first point. Rehman 00:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Rehman 10:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Graph caption has "hydropower" while the graph has "hydro power", be consistent. I would also avoid the glitzy graph style, 3D blocks, black background etc, this is an encyclopedic article, not a sales pitch.
I will do this over the course of this weekend. Is there any MOS for such charts? I'm unsure on what to base on... Rehman 00:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is done. Hope it's better now. Rehman 06:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Rehman 00:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't "privately run" be hyphenated?
This was removed as per Giants2008's third point. Rehman 00:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is "Power Purchase Agreement" all capitalised?
Changed to lowercase. Rehman 00:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link hydroelectricity the first time round.
Done. Rehman 00:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to relink megawatt.
Done. Rehman 00:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or coal. So, in general, check for overlinking.
Done. Rehman 00:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Loads of white space in the Hydroelectric section because of those three large images down the right-hand-side of the article.
See reply to the fifth point by Dudley. Rehman 00:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That entire section of prose is unreferenced.
Will do this today. I will update here again. Rehman 00:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Rehman 11:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two Hydroelectric power stations have no geographical info. At least add a note to say why not.
Added a note. Is that fine? Rehman 00:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please use human-readable dates for the commission date rather than YYYY-MM-DD.
Dates were kept that way for sorting. Is there way around this (human-readable dates that can be sorted)? Rehman 00:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the sorting template {{dts}} is specifically designed for this type of thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check all references are formatted correctly, e.g. ref 11 is a bare URL.
That was added by IP recently. I have fixed it. Rehman 00:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Rambling Man. Thanks for your comment. I have replied to each point above. Rehman 00:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, after 2 months this FLC hasn't managed to get a lot of support, and I'm going to have to close it to keep the FLC queue moving. Feel free to renominate in the future, once you've finished any outstanding reviewer concerns. --PresN 20:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been not promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_power_stations_in_Sri_Lanka/archive1&oldid=1076195691"