While I believe that this article is definitely a good article there are a couple of issues I have with it being featured.
Criterion 1b) Comprehensive treatment. There are a couple of glaring points the article neglects. First of all, the "energy consumption" of interest to this article is energy consumption as defined by the energy industry rather than energy consumption as defined physically. In other words, the article focuses on the major industrial forms of energy but avoids discussion of some of the most major forms of human energy consumption that occur on planet Earth in the form of agriculture (and plant photosynthesis) and exploitation of domestic animals. While it is not necessary to discuss these ideas at length, the article should make it clear that the energy consumption it has concerned itself with is energy consumption from industrial sources, fossil fuels, and power generation (via the power grid).
Criterion 1c) In part suffering from the oversight mentioned above, the article seems to miss some major points when dealing with "energy resources". In particular, solar energy is indeed the dominant form of energy available, but comparing it to the "global energy consumption" as was done is missing the point that most solar energy is being "consumed" in other fashions already (thgouth heating the planet, for example). The physics of this scenario should be more carefully dealt with otherwise there is some possibility of readers being misled about how we can "exploit" solar energy to our advantage. Indeed, if we built solar cells that surrounded the entire Earth, we would quickly freeze in the abject cold of space, for example.
The extremes are always interesting to understand a problem. You do raise an interesting issue however I have to respectfully disagree with your conclusion. Since a solar cell has a very low reflection rate (lower than that of the planet) its use actually, albeit very slightly, heats up the planet. The numbers in the article talk about the available sun energy at the surface (89PW), so the atmospheric influence is already subtracted. The total energy arriving from the sun is (175 PW). So to go back to the limit: A complete screen of solar cells in space would create a surface around the planet that is hotter than earth and would thus increase the temperature. I do not want to argue in favour or against solar cells however, afterall they are currently expensive. I just want to present the facts. Frank van Mierlo 19:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are the major issues with the article. I think they should be addressed before proceeding further. Perhaps GA would be a good place to start? --ScienceApologist 15:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Peer Review I suggest that this article be sent to WP:PR. For one, it doesn't seem comprehensive (not about length, just not sure if the content is all there). It would help to add more refs and more data, based on the advice of peers familiar with this subject. This article seems a cross between a list and an article in terms of data and prose. Besides, as an EIA report carries a helluva lot of detail, I definitely think this article needs more. ScienceApologist's views are also quite valid. Rama's arrow (3:16) 15:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments; I hope the article is informative and above all accurate summary of this admittedly large subject. I did review several EIA reports, in addition to reading both books cited. The famous Pascal said in one of his letters: "I would have made it shorter but I did not have the time." Frank van Mierlo 19:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)![reply]
I'd like to see much expansion and detail about world consumption of Oil, coal, geothermal, hydropower, biomass, solar and wind energy current uses and potential projections. A decent start, but needs much more.--MONGO 16:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review, I appreciate your time and comments. The article gives the exact numbers for all of the energy sources you mention both in graphical and numerical format. Are you looking for more prose? Could you help me with this? I avoided projections, because the energy industry in particular, and humans in general, tend to get projections wrong. Energy at the crossroads by Vaclav Smil, MIT Press 2003 makes an eloquent argument against projections in the third chapter for essentially the same reasons. Frank van Mierlo 19:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was the original title, happy to change it back if there is consensus for doing so. Apart from the title do you think the article is of sufficient quality to be featured? Frank van Mierlo 21:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to post the same comment. The current title reads like a book chapter. Otherwise, it's a very interesting and wide topic but it isn't even close to cover the whole topic. Here's the few sugestions I just come up with:
Subsections about each type of energy source
That is covered elsewhere see other links.
Differences in consumption and resources between regions and countries
Covered in the first graphic
How the energy consumption and the available energy resources are measured
OK will make a stab at this.
Future trends
No no no it should be factual not someone SWAG. Future trends are anyone's guess. See also Energy at the crossroads by Vaclav Smil, MIT Press 2003 third chapter for a more eloquent expose on this.
CommentThere is next-to-no reason to use a column template for the bulk of this article.Slof 23:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you want readable graphics. Frank van Mierlo 00:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Common image formatting also results in readable graphics, as well as a better display if done properly. Slof 01:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please have a go at formating the images in a way that keeps them readable? I agree with you that the column format leaves lots to be desired. After several attempts it was the only layout that remotely did what I tried to do, namely make the data accessible. Frank van Mierlo 01:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the effort, are you happy with the result? Frank van Mierlo 03:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, it's simply sufficient. The whole of the pictures take up more area than the text, which usually is the other way around for most featured articles (although that's not what defines them); it would be in this article's best interest to garner more text. Slof 03:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
File:Screenshot Jan 27 2007.jpgScreenshot, note white space in the middle of the article and the single line of text running to the right. I think you hit the core of the problem. I believe Beagle had another crack at it but the layout is still less than desirable, with the text bouncing between the graphics and the edge of the screen and white spaces in the middle of the article (depending on the screen resolution). This article is about digesting a lot of numbers and often that is best done with clear graphics. Now we have made the graphics smaller which is a painful compromise. Could you live with the column format at this point? Frank van Mierlo 13:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised by this critisisme; this article must rank as one of the best referenced articles on Wikipedia. Because of the high data quality the article was proposed to be featured. In order to prepare the graphics I spent several days reviewing books and data on the websites stated at the bottom of the article. References are carefully listed in the text and graphics are simple and crisp to facilitate the understanding of a difficult subject. All numbers is presented in SI units to enable the reader to grasp and verify the data. If you check the references listed you will find at least two and often three sources for each number. Frank van Mierlo 01:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object and refer to peer review. Thank you Samsara for fixing the basic MOS variance in the article title. Article fails 1a, 1b, 1c, and 2. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Normally I'd also recommend referring to peer review, but honestly, you probably get more feedback over here, so I hope people will treat this FAC as essentially a peer review.
The lead could use improvement. It seems like consumption is defined twice and resources not at all.
"Current consumption" should be "Worldwide energy consumption, 2006" or something like that.
"Vast amounts of energy" is POV.
The rest of that para is just as problematic. "A number of theories have been supposed...". Yikes. Supposed by whom? Got a cite?
Shouldn't resources be before consumption?
Lots of "currently" "current" "today" etc. needs to be eliminated.
Prose issues. "Ever since the advent of the industrial revolution, the worldwide energy consumption has been growing steadily." should be "Since the industrial revolution, worldwide energy consumption has steadily increased".
Why is the chart of "Use of energy by sector" in the resources section instead of the consumption section?
I'm getting a little tired. I'll add some more comments later if I get the chance.--DaveOinSF 06:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The last note was an accident on my part while moving the images around. It's in the consumption section now. Slof 06:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In my opinion the inconsistencies in the graphs are less than perfect. Instead of looking like part of a series they look like random finds. i.e.:
The line graph and the bar chart: Similar font but completely different background.
The "Use of energy by sector in the United States" pie chart - The images do not give a professional/encyclopedic impression. Also this pie chart is totally different from the next one. Of course this is because one is from another source and one is (I assume) custom made. But there's no reason why they can't use the same style.
The comic sans font (or similar) used for Image:Available Energy-2.jpg is again, neither professional nor encyclopedic.
None of the graphs have titles. Good thing? Bad thing? Mark83 14:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Other things that might be problems include a lack of discussion of Peak oil. Also, "Both estimates provide oil for the foreseeable future at current consumption rates" is disputed, and doesn't really mean anything anyway (is any of the future foreseeable?) --Spangineerws(háblame) 18:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've suggested at the FAC that you take the article to WP:PR, so as to give Gralo, Beagel and others the time to help you make it a perfect article. Excellent work on the whole, although I don't think its comprehensive about the subject. Rama's arrow (3:16) 16:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The article is fine, and while it doesn't have FA "size" yet, it will certainly be approved at the Good Articles. Put {{GAnominee}} in the Talk, and submit it to WP:GAC. igordebraga≠ 18:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank to everyone for contributing to the discussion. I will implement some of the excellent suggestions and move the it to Good Articles.
Please continue to help edit this page and hopefully we can make it a featured article in the near future. Please help to keep it to the point,to quote Pascal: "I would have made it shorter but I did not have the time." Frank van Mierlo 19:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
