Talk:Tehachapi Energy Storage Project

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tehachapi Energy Storage Project article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Tehachapi Energy Storage Project has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 9, 2020	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 10, 2020.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the 608,832 lithium-ion battery cells assembled at the Tehachapi Energy Storage Project are capable of powering between 1,600 and 2,400 homes for four hours?

Energy Mid‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

California Mid‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Engineering Low‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Environment Low‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tehachapi Energy Storage Project/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Maury Markowitz (talk · contribs) 12:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have a number of concerns with this article, and I haven't even managed to make it past the lede.

The very first ref in the articles doesn't even mention TSP as far as I can tell, nor SCE, or anything else related to the topic.
The lede makes statements that are not found in the body. For instance, the four-hour use and number of homes is not mentioned in the body.
The lede makes the trivial comparison to hybrid vehicles, which is the sort of thing that reduces the clarity of the article (which hybrids? the Volt or the Civic?). And this too appears nowhere in the body.
The article is filled with significant over-citation. For instance, in the lede a single statement has 17 cites on it, all of which are simply quoting the same original press release. As these are all included in-line in ref tags, the source text is practically unreadable.
Most of the body text consists of large single-paragraph blocks of text that glom together unrelated topics. These need to be broken up for readability.

The material itself is fine, and reasonably organized and imaged. But it does need a good copyedit and the refs have the significantly trimmed. Nothing that can't be fixed within the GA period, but I am curious about the nom's desires here - do you wish to make edits yourself, or should I go at it? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review and comments. Yes, it would be helpful if you can provide the suggested edits. I am new to this and would like to learn more. --Renewableandalternativeenergy (talk) 15:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Renewableandalternativeenergy: Ok I'm heading out for the weekend, but I'll start work on it next week. I'll leave detailed notes in the checkins so you can see why I do certain things. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Maury Markowitz: Thank you very much. I will start filtering out the references to reduce duplicates. --Renewableandalternativeenergy (talk) 12:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Maury Markowitz: To try to help with the review, I made some attempts at reducing the number of references, as well as adding some spacing to separate some of the content. Hopefully, this is helpful. --Renewableandalternativeenergy (talk) 12:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Excellent** updates! The only bit of the body I would suggest editing is to move the history to the top of the first section and expand it if possible. The idea that this was a little test rack that turned into a production system is interesting. The lede still needs some edits, but other than that it looks good. I'll get started on moving the cites to the bottom.

@Maury Markowitz: Thank you for the edits and for the continued feedback. I will try moving some of the history as suggested. For the lede, should I review your original comments and try to include the feedback? --Renewableandalternativeenergy (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Maury Markowitz: I tried to incorporate the feedback about the lede. --Renewableandalternativeenergy (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Maury Markowitz: As suggested, some history was expanded, including information and perspectives about the subscale testing. --Renewableandalternativeenergy (talk) 01:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Maury Markowitz: I reviewed the feedback items and I think that most of them have been addressed (or at least attempted to be addressed). Can you please let me know if there are additional items that I should try to help with or work on during the GA review period? Thank you. --Renewableandalternativeenergy (talk) 01:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Maury Markowitz: Can you please let me know if there are additional revisions needed for the GA review? Thank you very much. --Renewableandalternativeenergy (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, back, sorry for the delays. Following the reviewer's guide...

the prose is good to go. I'd like to see some more if this goes to FA, just fleshing out the history of the project, but this is *more* than good for GA.
I have spot checked the refs and didn't find anything remotely questionable. I would personally used SFNs for the inline citations, but that has no bearing on this review.
coverage is fine. One might compare the system to others, but in this rapidly moving field anything you add is likely to be out of date by the time you click Publish.
the article meets any definition of NPOV I could imagine.
with the exception of the changes for this GA process, the article is stable and likely to be for some time.
the images are useful and good quality. All of them are PD as they come from Sandia and everything on their commons pages looks correct.
there are no copyviows that I can see.

I think this is good to go. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Maury Markowitz: Thank you very much for the review, useful feedback, and the promotion to Good Article. --Renewableandalternativeenergy (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 21:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Inside the Tehachapi Energy Storage Project during construction

... that the 608,832 lithium-ion battery cells assembled together at the Tehachapi Energy Storage Project are capable of powering between 1,600 and 2,400 homes for four hours? Source: https://energized.edison.com/stories/sce-unveils-largest-battery-for-storing-electricity-in-north-america

Improved to Good Article status by Renewableandalternativeenergy (talk). Self-nominated at 17:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ:
Overall: No QPQ is listed. @Renewableandalternativeenergy: Have you done a QPQ or is no QPQ required here? Small point, but the "A" in "Accolades" should be lowercase. I've slightly tweaked the hook. Feel free to undo. Image license checks out, so image should be transferred to Commons. Ergo Sum 01:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ergo Sum: Thank you for the review and for the revision. I am new to this and I need to become more familiar with how the QPQ works. The image is already in Commons. Renewableandalternativeenergy (talk) 01:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ergo Sum: The "A" in "Accolades" was revised to lowercase. Thank you for mentioning this. Renewableandalternativeenergy (talk) 02:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Renewableandalternativeenergy: If this is your first DYK, then you are exempt from the QPQ requirement. Everything else checks out. This nom is good to go. Congratulations on your first DYK. Ergo Sum 02:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ergo Sum: Thank you very much for the review and explanations. Renewableandalternativeenergy (talk) 02:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Renewableandalternativeenergy Requested a spoken wikipedia

recording for this article because: "Good Article about new technology for the electric grid" And so I've done it. The file still needs editing for mistakes. Seeking criticism. Gallomimia (talk) 06:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help with this. Renewableandalternativeenergy (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

SCE TSP-Mini-System Photo.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]