Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
A few comments:
-
"is now one of the cleanest and most efficient coal-fired power stations in the UK." is a very vague claim and must be referenced, even in the lead.
-
-
Could the lead be somewhat longer. There is a lot of relevant information that is left out.
-
-
First instance of the United Kingdom should not be
-
-
Could you be consistent in whether metric or imperial units are used first.
-
-
I think it's all metric first now. This needs checking mind. I've also gotten rid of the tonne conversions.
-
Never both italics and quotation marks. For vehicle and vessel names, use italics.
-
-
You've already sorted this one out.
-
Normally, numbers less than ten (optionally twelve) are spelled out, while those larger use digits (that's why the '5' was converted to 'five'. In a later section, I didn't change the '6' because it came after a comparable '35', in which it is better to stick to the same format.
-
-
Once again, you've already taken care of this.
-
Some times tonnes are converted, and some times they are not. It seems redundant to convert, with the values being so close and the low amount of significant digits, but I understand the MOS in such a way that it should be done. Under the first sentence of 'Electricity generation', 1,000 tonnes is converted to 984.2 LT; 1,102 ST. It is difficult to know how many significant digits the source uses, but two or three would be natural at most, thus giving 980 LT and 1100 ST. Perhaps even 1000 LT and 1100 ST. I'll
-
-
They're gone. I learned a while ago that approximations shouldn't be converted like this. I just hadn't tidied up this article from it.
-
Just because a term has a common abbreviation (such as intermediate pressure ->IP), does not mean that the term is capitalized (only if it is a proper noun).
-
-
I am a bit concerned about ref 38, due to the following: The article states: "The trial proved that there were no significant negative effects on the environment". This may be true, but it would then have to be verified by an independent and neutral part, such as a government organization or an NGO.
-
-
BBC News ref states that the EA agreed with Drax's findings. I've now changed the text to indicate this.
-
Don't link to things linked in the article under 'see also'. Also, how does Advanced Plant Management System relate to the article.
-
-
I think this one is resolved now. It was a spammy link in the 'see also's that I hadn't thought to get rid of.
-
I've removed all the external links. The ideal article does not include any external links, and none of the four meet the criteria: a reliable or official site that significantly adds to what a fully-featured article would cover in the article, including that covered in sub-articles [my wording]. News coverage and the SourceWatch wiki do not meet this criteria.
-
-
Again, spammy green links that I hadn'tthought to get rid of.
Fix up the comments (some I have done) and the article should pass. Good work so far :) Arsenikk (talk) 17:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
-
A last note; I reverted the infobox image back to 250px to keep it the same width as the map below it. I just felt it kept the article looking tidier. Fintan264 (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
-
-
Congratulations with a good article. Sorry you had to wait so long when there was so little to it. As for the UK thing that I never finished, I was saying to not use abbreviations—even extremely common ones like UK—until after using United Kingdom spelled out once. Personally, I prefer using 'United Kingdom' and 'United States' spelled out throughout the article (but I believe that is a matter of taste, don't think the MOS mentions it). The 250px and ref is fine. I think a long lead will be better (many people read the lead, the whole lead and nothing but the lead, plus perhaps captions), but I won't hold it against GA status. Hope to see some more of your work around GAN soon :) Arsenikk (talk) 22:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
