Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Johnfos (talk | contribs) at 05:03, 4 May 2009 (→Some tags and suggestions: reality check). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Energy Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Environment This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Solar power is currently a Engineering good article nominee. Nominated by an unspecified nominator at 18:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.

For older archives see Talk:Solar energy.

Some tags and suggestions

I'm adding an "Unbalanced" tag to the top of this article, as it focuses too much on PV, and not enough on CSP. The lead provides a good example of this where paragraphs two and three are mainly about PV.

Also, the use of the term "concentrating solar power" is confusing as there are PV concentrating systems as well (eg., Mildura Solar concentrator power station). Why not use the term "solar thermal power", which is more descriptive?

The large SEGS plant deserves more discussion, but mainly the article is too focused on the USA, and doesn't capture the many interesting solar power things that are happening in places like Spain. The two largest PV power plants, Olmedilla Photovoltaic Park (60 MW), the Puertollano Photovoltaic Park (50 MW), are in Spain, but I can't see where they are discussed. Very few of the solar thermal power plants in Spain are mentioned. I couldn't see where the Andasol solar power station and the PS20 Solar Power Station are discussed.

I'm also adding an "Off topic" tag to the Energy storage methods section. Detailed info about wind power and the Erie Shores Wind Farm is clearly off-topic. The molten salt discussion is more relevant and could be expanded, and plants which use this storage approach mentioned. Mention of wind power and pumped-hydro in the first paragraph of the article is not appropriate. Lead image of the article should focus more directly on solar power. Johnfos (talk) 00:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I swapped CSP and PV per your suggestion, but wind and storage are vital to the article, and do belong in the lead - without them solar can only be used as a small supplement, and never reach its potential. 199.125.109.77 (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Reality check: You are User:Apteva, aren't you? The editor who has put this article forward as a GA nominee? You appear to edit under several account names and IP addresses. Johnfos (talk) 05:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed energy articles
• Top-importance energy articles
• Unassessed Environment articles
• Unknown-importance Environment articles
• Good article nominees
• Good article nominees on review