- The following discussion 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 PumpkinSky talk 10:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Pemberton Point edit
- ... that Pemberton Point (pictured) is home to the first commercial urban wind turbine in North America?
- ALT1:... that Pemberton Point (pictured) is home to the first commercial wind turbine in New England?
- Reviewed: Lost Land of the Jaguar
Created/expanded by HueSatLum (talk). Self nom at 18:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
. Everything checks out. The PDF source confirms that the New Wind Turbine: "(1) was the first commercial-scale wind turbine to go online anywhere on the U.S. coastline between Maine and Florida, (2) it was the first urban-sited turbine on the North American continent, and (3) the first such publically-owned wind turbine to be sited in the United States within easy walking distance of a stop on a mass transit system (a ferry)." Some of that info could also be added to the article. Nice work. Good to go. Poeticbent talk 03:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
There are problems with both hooks, based on the sources involved. The article doesn't even agree with the first hook, and makes it quite clear that the point had the first commercial wind turbine on the east coast of the US: that's from Maine down to Florida. The source makes no claims about the Canadian east coast (also North America) nor the Gulf coast nor the Pacific coast from Mexico up through Alaska. Further, while the Pemberton Point turbine may have been the only commercial wind turbine in Massachusetts when the source of the statement was written in 2004, it certainly isn't now; among others, there's a second Hull turbine at the landfill that started service, and is specifically mentioned as having done so in the article.
- The article is unclear in its presentation of the wind turbine history of Pemberton Point. I didn't see any evidence from the source that the original turbine, which produced energy for nearly twelve years, from spring 1985 through March 1987, was also named "Hull Wind I", as seems implied by the paragraph. I also don't understand what "completed in 1996" means in this context. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand. Source 8 says, "it was the first urban-sited turbine on the North American continent", not just the East Coast.
- The article is unclear in its presentation of the wind turbine history of Pemberton Point. I didn't see any evidence from the source that the original turbine, which produced energy for nearly twelve years, from spring 1985 through March 1987, was also named "Hull Wind I", as seems implied by the paragraph. I also don't understand what "completed in 1996" means in this context. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- I fixed that to say the new turbine was nicknamed Hull Wind I.
- First, I was mistaken, and must apologize: you're absolutely right that the original hook is fine. I missed the word "urban" in that hook, and the source does indeed confirm that point.
- Next, point 2) ("go online anywhere on the U.S. coastline") does not stretch to say that there weren't earlier turbines in areas of those states away from the coastline (in non-urban areas per the first point). So ALT1 indeed appears problematic. However, there's an easy fix: the first source (the one about Hull Wind II) states on its first page that Hull Wind I was "the first and largest commercial wind turbine in New England", which by default means it was first in Massachusetts. As long as you add this to the article with the proper citation, ALT1 will be fine, though you might want to consider replacing "Massachusetts" with "New England", since it's far more impressive.
- I think that source statement about the 40kW windmill installation means that it was in operation (in place) during those years, rather than it took 12 years to assemble and start up. Note, however, that source 8 has it as 1985 through 1997, as did one of the Hull Wind sources. I think I'd go with those years, rather than 1984 through 1996. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- Fixed I think I got it. HueSatLum 00:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Um, please be careful not to use icons that have formal meanings in a DYK review: you've used the tick that approves the article assuming good faith, and that tick should only be used by a reviewer. It's enough just to say "Fixed". Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- Fixed I think I got it. HueSatLum 00:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Oops! Sorry about that! HueSatLum 18:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- No problem! Icons get reused all the time, and sometimes they're at cross-purposes. Now you'll know. :-)
I'm sorry to have been so long getting back to this; as you can see, I wanted to reorganize the Wind turbines section material, and have finally been able to do so. (I also removed a little that seemed unimportant, like the "turbine nearest public transportation" thing, which seemed more like trivia than anything else. While both hooks are supported, I didn't feel that after having made such a significant edit I should sign off on the nomination. I'll attempt to recruit a reviewer so this doesn't have to continue waiting too much longer for approval. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Looks good, new enough and long enough, reads well. Moon asked me to review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
