Talk:Three Gorges Dam/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The prose isn't very good. It's quite terse and technical, not especially readable and does not always explain things very well. See the full list of problems below. Update: the main problems with the prose have been fixed. Now it is good enough for GA.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The article is well supplied with inline citations. I did found some unreliable sources (see the list of problems below). Unfortunately since I cannot read Chinese, I could not verify the facts which had Chinese-language sources, but I did not spot any facts which would be obviously wrong based on my knowledge on other sources. There a lot of Chinese-language sources; it would be nice if more English sources would be used instead. Since the subject is well known, these should not be too hard to find. Update: unreliable sources have been removed and some English refs added for important claims.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   No problems here.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   There were some potentially controversial facts which were cited to the website of one of the involved companies. These sources should be replaced by third-party sources. Update: fixed.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall: This is a very good article except for the prose. It covers all the important aspects. It is neutral and visually pleasing. But I believe there are a lot of problems with the prose, and there were also some bad references. Please see the list of problems below. Update: the prose and references have been fixed. All clear now!

   Pass/Fail:

Reviewer: Nanobear (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing. I agree with most of your suggestions and have started making a few improvements. Johnfos (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Have worked on the prose, clarified some points, and added a few more English language references to address suggestions made. Johnfos (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

List of some specific problems and improvement suggestions:

Lead

• only exceeded by Itaipu Dam, Brazil and Paraguay's electricity-generating plant - I think "Brazil and Paraguay's" is not a good expression. It should be something like "...Itaipu Dam, located on the border between Brazil and Paraguay."
• The ref used for the claim It is the world's largest electricity-generating plant (industcard.com) does not seem to be reliable. Or can someone explain why it would be reliable? Surely you can find a better reference for such a claim than some photo site. Also, what exactly does "largest" mean here? This should be clarified.
• when the 26th generator in the shore plant - what "shore plant"?
• Coupling the dam's thirty-two main generators with two smaller generators (50 MW each) to power the plant itself, the total electric generating capacity of the dam will eventually reach 22.5 GW - this is a confusing sentence. Could you reword it in some other way please? If the two smaller generators are used to power the plant itself, why is their capacity included in the total generating capacity? I thought the "generating capacity" of a power plant usually means its net production.

No. Total generating capacity usually refers to combined maximum installed capacity of the turbines. Net production refers to the actual amount of electricity produced over a particular time period, such as a year. Johnfos (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• increases the river's shipping capacity - here, I think "the river" should be replaced with Yangtze River for clarity. The river was previously mentioned only once, so it's not an ugly repetition.

Changes made on each of the above points. Johnfos (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

History

• The dam was originally envisioned by Sun Yat-sen - this needs some clarification. Why is the dam envisioned by Yat-sen the same as the topic of this article? Perhaps you should rather write: "A dam on the Three Gorges was first envisioned by..."
• During the 1980s, the idea reemerged. - perhaps this needs some clarification too. What idea? Please reword a bit.
• The poem quote - can you please indicate why this is notable? It needs at least some kind of explanation.
• (the ship lift is further out, in 2014.) - This doesn't sound very good, please rephrase.

Changes made. Johnfos (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Layout and scale

• The project used 200,000 cubic metres (300,000 cu yd) of concrete - used for what? Please clarify.

Clarified. Johnfos (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Economics

• When finished, the project is expected to have cost 180 billion yuan, 12% under budget - I think for massive projects like this, going under budget is pretty rare. It's an exceptional claim, and therefore it would good if there was a third-party source (preferably in English) to support it. The current source used is China Three Gorges Corporation, which may not be completely neutral.

Fixed. Claim could not be verified in any other sources. Johnfos (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Generators

• Here is a video animation of the Three Gorges Dam generators. - I don't think this is good style. I think the convention is to put things like this in the external links.

Yes, fixed. Johnfos (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Generator installation progress

• The underground power plant and its six generators, were still under construction as of December, 2008 - 2008 was 2 years ago. I think this definitely needs an update.
• Shouldn't the material in this belong rather belong to the history chapter?

Updated. I really think this material is fine where it is, as the History section provides general background information. Johnfos (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Output milestones

• Same here, this should be integrated to history, unless there's a very good reason for keeping it separate. I'm not seeing anything that would prevent it from being integrated to history.

I think you would expect the Output milestones to be near the end of the article, not up front. Johnfos (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Floods, agriculture, industry

• The most significant function of the dam is to control flooding - is this really true? One would think power generation is the "most significant function" of the dam.

Changed wording to "An important function". Johnfos (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Locks

• The installation of ship locks is intended to increase river shipping from ten million to 100 million tonnes annually - this is a bit confusing. How exactly are the shiplocks related to the dam? (A layman will not know). Why exactly will installing them increase river shipping? This is unclear. One possible interpretation is that building the dam reduced shipping, and now building the ship locks will increase it again, but this is probably not correct. Is it only the installation of ship locks that will increase shipping, or is it dam plus ship locks? Please clarify.

This image and the associated caption, presented early in the article, shows how the ship locks are related to the dam. Text also clarified. Johnfos (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• Each of the two ship locks - please change this to something like "There will be two shiplocks installed near the dam. Both of them are made of..." It's not correct to just say "the two ship locks" when the two ship locks have not yet been mentioned in text.

Changed. Johnfos (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

In popular culture

• I believe this section should be removed per WP:TRIVIA. I'm not sure why the mention of the dam in the novels World War Z or Dragon Bones is notable and relevant. The same goes for all the other items in the list. If you wish to keep this section, then it should at least have some kind explanation why each item is notable.

Yes, removed. Johnfos (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

External links

• There are many links here which could be just as well used as sources. I'm not sure why the BBC News links are especially notable or interesting, for example. I think the EL section should be mainly for stuff like links to the homepages of relevant companies and government agencies, links to important expert reports or academic papers about the project, etc. I believe most of the current links should be removed.

Removed old external links which added little. Johnfos (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I think these problems should be fixed before the article is passed. Nanobear (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Have worked on the prose, clarified some points, and added a few more English language references to address suggestions made. Johnfos (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I was impressed with how quick the problems were fixed. The article seems now to be good enough for GA. Great work overall. Nanobear (talk) 11:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)