User talk:Johnsonjr9/sandbox

I added the production portion though I am worried that some of it may infringe Wiki's plagiarism. Very close wording with the technical aspect of this section. Also I feel like there is a better or nicer looking way to have links to other Wiki pages. Let me know if you have any suggestions. I think we need to condense and move some of the information as well, but we can finagle the niceties after the peer review.

Peer Review Overall, the formatting of this page looks good. In the lead section, make sure that the first sentence describes what the subject is in a nutshell to get the reader interested at the very start. Don't start it with a date. Some of the word choices seem unprofessional to me (I could be wrong), such as "fired-up" and other words like that. Lastly, make sure all of your sources are cited, you can't just provide the links to the pages. I didn't see any plagiarism, but be sure to double-check that everything is in your own words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan harris11 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Rebekah White

I thought the tone of the article matched well with what Wikipedia outlines, and didn't seem to present any bias. The general layout and structure of the article also looked really good. Most of the article from what I could tell looked like it was cited well. However, I did see in the section about production the last sentence was cited as coming from an article from powermag.com that was written in 2012 but the sentence said, as of 2017, so the dates where a little confusing to me. You might just need to add another citation there. Also I appreciated the links to other articles, I would just recommend deleting the names that you have listed twice in the production section. RebekahWhite (talk) 04:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Caroline Turner

After reading this article, I did not notice any major errors. I searched about one or two sentences from each section and there does not seem to be any plagiarism. However, I would suggest going through each section and citing specific information that is not common knowledge. I found citations to be lacking most in your introductory paragraph, the History section, and the Production section. Here are some minor grammatical errors in each section:

Intro:

- "The plant deploys circulating fluidized bed boiler technology to use a variety of fuel sources including bituminous coal, coal gob, a waste product from abandoned coal mines, and bio-fuels." Change to--- "The plant deploys circulating fluidized bed boiler technology to use a variety of fuel sources including bituminous coal, coal gob (a waste product from abandoned coal mines), and bio-fuels."

- I would suggest re-wording this sentence. When I first read it, I was confused. "The use of coal gob can have a potentially positive impact on the surrounding environment of where the waste sites are situated, as it allows for it to be transported away from nearby streams and then stored as a solid in a waste storage site."

- Delete the comma after "DEQ" --- "VCHEC is placed under stringent environmental regulations by the Department of Environmental Quality, DEQ,."

History:

- "This energy plant uses coal as well as waste coal which are called gob piles in order to produce energy." Change to: "In order to produce energy, this energy plant uses coal as well as waste coal, called gob piles."

- "The plant is very large and effective at producing energy, but had some challenges during construction that had to be overcome." --- Change to: "The plant is very large and effective at producing energy, but had some challenges during construction which had to be overcome."

- I would maybe delete the sentence: "The Virginia City Hybrid Energy Plant is very modern, and therefore safety is a priority." OR I would begin a new paragraph starting with the information about the safety.

- "The Virginia City Hybrid Energy Plant is a modern plant that uses some alternative fuel sources to create energy and had to overcome multiple challenges in order to be in production." This sentence sounds a little biased and is kind just some "fluff" at the end of the paragraph.

Production:

- "The production of energy process of Dominion’s Virginia City Hybrid Energy Center is an interesting feat of engineering." Change "of" to "at"

- In the section where you're talking about Scrubbers, baghouses, and selective catalytic reduction, the links were not placed correctly into the sentence. You can highlight the word or phrase you want to link without adding the word or phrase again. That is a confusing explanation, but the modules explain it better!

- I was a little confused when I read this sentence. Maybe re-word? "VCHEC also improves upon water use and reuse boasting about one-tenth of water use compared to coal plants of a similar size."

- I would introduce the quote "Overall, VCHEC approaches zero wastewater discharge when the plant is operating." instead of just placing it in your paragraph.

- "As of December 2017 over 9000 of these parts are currently in use among power plants including VCHEC." Add a comma after 2017.

Environmental Impact and Pollution Production:

- Maybe find a link to CFB, because you use that term often, but it's not 100% clear what it is.

- "The burning of gob coal is expected to remove hazardous waste from prior coal mines, preventing toxins from continuing to leach off of them." Maybe change to: "The burning of gob coal is expected to remove hazardous waste from prior coal mines, preventing toxins from leaching off of them."

- "Carbon Monoxide emissions during 2012 and early 2013 had three events for on CFB Unit and another three events for a second CFB Unit." I think you meant to type "one CFB Unit"? Although not sure.

Controversy:

- Grammatically, this section looks fine. However, I would suggest adding more information.

Overall, great job on your article. It looks good!

Turnercr1 (talk) 14:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)turnercr1Turnercr1 (talk) 14:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

14:07, 27 March 2018

Comments from Rymisenar

Great format and citing, I saw no grammatical or spelling errors. There were a few biased statements before quickly returning to factual rather than opinion based. I would, however, enjoy more information about the emissions and byproducts and how they may relate to current environmental issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rymisenar (talk • contribs) 18:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Bryson Honeycutt

I think that this page offers good content and has a lot of good ideas but much of the structure needs work. For instance, the second sentence in Lead section is a run-on sentence. My advice would be to break it up in to two different ideas or reword it entirely. Further, I am kind of confused about "The air quality control equipment includes a dry scrubber Scrubber, baghouse particulate filter Baghouse, selective catalytic reduction system (SCR) Selective catalytic reduction, and activated carbon injection system(mercury)[6]." in the Production section. Why is Scrubber and Selective Catalytic reduction repeated twice. There are a few other small grammatical errors that I found like comas being in the wrong place, but for the most part the information is good and unplagiarized. I would reconsider some of the sources however, I'm not sure all of them are reliable (PowerMag). Bryson H (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)