This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
In this edit, Jeh ( talk · contribs) has re-restored reverted bold new text without attempting a discussion outside of edit summaries.
Earlier I had reverted this text on two grounds. First, that its sourced to a blog. Jeh's edit summary correctly points out that a strict reading of the text shows we're only reporting that some blogger bloke in Australia has a certain opinion. The first question to ask is whether that bloke's opinion has meaningful WP:WEIGHT? To help answer that question, let's move on to Point No. 2, speculation/CrystalBall.
I had also reverted on grounds that the Aussie bloke is running analyses without the engineering details being developed by Solar Roadways. The disputed text says the Aussie "has presented detailed analyses of Solar Roadways' proposals from the electrical engineering point of view." To my knowledge, the details of Solar Roadways' R&D are still proprietary, rendering any "detailed analysis" dependent entirely on speculation. It might be generally informed, with knowledge of the current state of on the shelf technology, but he has to guess what on the shelf technology might be used, and he has to assume the company has not invented any new components, materials, or combinations. Informed speculation is still speculation. In short, this guy is engaged in educated guessing on his blog, and that has ZERO WEIGHT.
You seen to be unfamiliar with the Fermi problem where you can make very good approximations without having exact data on a particular process. This is used very often in science and engineering fields to determine if something is even viable before doing a detailed calculation. Also aren't you speculating that company has "invented any new components, materials, or combinations"? You have a person who did an analysis with informed speculation and another person saying "trust us, we'll figure it out." Why would the Solar Roadway people have more weight? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.24.175.141 ( talk) 12:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Jeh, can you show the fellow had access to the company's R&D and ran detailed analyses on the actual design specs? Now THAT would be interesting and important to include. Some blogger bloke who makes informed guesses? Not so much.
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
What evidence is there that he is a reliable source? Why should we be including his criticism in this article? Perhaps if an actual WP:RS quoted him or something, but sourcing directly to his videos is questionable to me. I'd support removing them and looking for better criticism from better sources, if such exists. — Torchiest talk edits 17:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I believe this would be considered reliable, since Jalopnik is part of Gawker and has editorial oversight. — Torchiest talk edits 00:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
If the site has editorial oversight, which it does, it can be both humorous and reliable. Check the front page. The articles are serious enough; they just throw in funny remarks here and there. I'd thought that if a RS got commentary from someone, that commentary would be considered vetted and reliable as well. — Torchiest talk edits 14:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually, that article above links to a better article here that gets into the costs. That, in turn, links to this article from way back in 2010. Both of those should be reliable sources. — Torchiest talk edits 14:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
e/c
The extremetech article referenced says "According to some maths done by Aaron Saenz, the total cost to redo America’s roadways with Solar Roadways would be $56 trillion". It links to Singuarity Hub as the source for that information. [1] So if you have a quote, then why not mention the original source, not a guy who did nothing but repeat it without checking any numbers on his own? And didn't we agree before Singularity Hub wasn't a reliable source? They currently are used as a reference for the first paragraph, which just repeats what the company officially said. A real news source could be found to reference that. Dream Focus 19:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
http://www.solarroadways.com/images/news/SOTU.jpg But it's from Washington DC-- could that be a reliable source? GangofOne ( talk) 10:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Opposed since the president is speaking about the internet, not solar R&D for roads. Also opposed because a pic of the pres does not inform the reader about the article topic, as images are supposed to do. Also opposed to mentioning the prez statement even in text because we would be assuming the president is refering to this company. Granted this company is the only one possibility I know of, but I still have to apply my special knowledge of that fact to connect the ambiguous statement by the pres to the Solar Roadways company. That's unpermitted OR, no matter how solid I think the assumption may be. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 01:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Opposed 'cause Prez didn't say it in the first place Well duh. Transcript of prez' actual speech lacks the phrase "solar road" or "solar roadway". This image creates a false impression that the phrase "solar roadways" made it into the actual State of the Union speech, thus putting words into Obama's mouth that he did not utter in the speech. The file uploaded to wikipedia credits "some goverment lackey" with the phrase made possible a an online fundraising platform that raised $2.2 million....". "According to some government lackey, a free and open internet made possible...."
<<<<< That's what this file actually supports, and I'm underwhelmed at the weight of some government lackey's opinion. Besides that, it still doesn't name THIS company as THE company, the topic was the internet not the company nor product, the picture does not show Solar Roadways (neither company nor product), and while its OK for the Whitehouse to engage in POV and propaganda, that's not what we do so to stick to our principles we'd have to substitute the president's head with the mug of some government lackey, because that's who said it.
NewsAndEventsGuy (
talk)
03:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
So far, it's been 1.5 YEARS, and ....
This article is the perfect example of the type of article that shouldn't exist, seriously. No spec, no price, no availability, so delete this article until they can actually ship something instead of hot air and vaporware! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 06:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
References
I don't get this section at all. Are they talking about the total weight each panel can support ? If so, what does total vehicle weight have to do with that ? Presumably an entire vehicle is not going to be balanced on one panel. Instead, it should talk about pressures the panel can support and max pressures applied by, say, a heavy vehicle running over a stone on the panel, so it's weight is concentrated on a small area with a high pressure. (Note that asphalt might fail under high pressures, too, but if that just means the stone becomes embedded in the asphalt, that's no big deal, unlike a shattered solar panel.) Also, the link at the end doesn't seem to go anywhere related to the figures given. StuRat ( talk) 04:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
As other editors have pointed out already, most of the references on the "Planned and Potential Capabilities" are made by solar roadways themselves(only one reference is from an external source) and not verified independent testing. Either 1) delete the unverified claims or 2) rephase the language to make it clear these are only claims out of a lab with no successful implementation. Fantastic claims requite equally fantastic references, not vague invocations of potential. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reiuji ( talk • contribs) 12:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Article has been tagged as it is overly promotional in nature and repeats many of the claims of the company from their promotional materials which are not substantiated by independent sources.
This page is enourmously biased in favour of this company, given the neutral position is somewhere between "outright scam" & "idiotic theorycrafting". Given the mass use of primary sources, wonder who's been editing. 89.240.134.224 ( talk) 19:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The continual editing to make any actual criticism as vague as possible is also incredibly sketchy. E.g. Along the lines of "Dr Roy Spencer points out that using the energy they generate to melt snow is in complete contradiction to the physical law of conservation of energy" keeps getting edited to "Dr Roy Spencer criticized the claim that the solar panels in winter will use the energy they generate to melt snowfall." as if it's just someone with a PhD thinking it's difficult, rather than it explicitly violating one of the most well tested principles in all of reality.
77.98.17.0 (
talk)
11:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
And now the completely unnecessary attempts at disparaging the very few people on this page that have criticised the scam. E.g. Claiming Roy Spencer is a detractor of man-made climate change which has no relation to the claim.
This page needs deleting. It is nothing more than lies pretending this scam idea isn't universally discredited by everyone with any knowledge of physics.
92.40.249.245 ( talk) 20:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Safiel's recent edit comment: "Ineligible for PROD, previously kept at AfD, which was very lengthy and contentious, take to AfD if deletion sought, though I think gaining a consensus for deletion is probably unlikely". Furthermore I think deletion is unwarranted: There is a story to tell about SolarRoadways, but it must include WP:DUE attention to the criticism the proposal has attracted and to other negatives. The problems with the article can be solved but we have to be persistent and unified in challenging those who keep removing or watering-down the criticism. Jeh ( talk) 22:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Solar roadways Didn't announce anything. Missouri DOT announced that it applied for a grant and hoped to CROWD fund solar roadways on a rest stop. The statement in the article is a huge leap from that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.235.46.247 ( talk) 22:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Considering how well known this is to be a scam by everyone with the slightest background in physics or electrical engineering, there should be atleast a small mention of this in the article. At the very least mentioning that it is physically impossible for it to ever be viable to put a solar panel flat on the floor rather than raised at angle. 82.42.233.172 ( talk) 03:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
82.42.233.172 ( talk) 19:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
There is a lot more than just some random.guys on the Internet that denounce this. Spend some time researching it and there are plenty of physicists that publicly denounce this. This is not arguable.
82.42.233.172 ( talk) 20:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I will propose an addition later. BlueKanra ( talk) 08:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
References
This article has been nothing but a Battleground since day 1 by anti-Solar Roadway proponents. Please do not contribute to that atmosphere by excessive tagging. Work on improving, not provoking. -- Green C 13:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any benefit to having those tags there at all. Where do you see any terms that qualify is WP:PEACOCK? Kindly list whatever sentence you see as having that problem. Dream Focus 16:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Many technical claims about the capabilities of the system come from its own creators (most sources are www.solarroadways.com). Text should be rewritten to emphasize this ("according to...", "...claim...", etc) or independent sources should be used instead. 138.131.177.63 ( talk) 07:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
It makes reading difficult when every sentence begins "According to Solar Roadways". It reads like a battleground and is tedious to read. It only needs to be done once at the start. The technology is still in R&D no one has a copy of the technology to test and even if it was an independent source they just got the numbers from SR anyway. -- Green C 13:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
How is this section so lacking? This thing only exists as a the-owners-are-pretending-to-be-retarded-enough-to-not-be-an-intentional-scam. What kinda dodgy editing is involved in supressing this? The article should make very clear that the idea is modern day snake oil. 79.74.4.64 ( talk) 19:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
A huge part of the criticism section references video blogs by Phil Mason. A blog might be a good source from an expert (c.f. Roy Spencer blog post immediately above), but Mason is a biochemist, surely not any sort of relevant expert. Even if he seems to have a point, is there a better source for these criticisms? - David Gerard ( talk) 14:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
This page was previously at least fairly balanced (despite being hugely over-positive to an obvious scam), now it reads just like an advert written by Solar Roadways. Phil Mason is certainly a relevant expert, this is not something that requires a 'solar-expert' (whatever that is supposed to be), this is something that anyone with a background in physics realises is poppycock. Your complaint that the source is aimed for a popular audience is something that is impossible to do better, no sources aimed for people with a background in the subject will exist, as it is so blatantly fantasy. Asking for an article aimed at specialists showing why solar roadways is nonsense is like asking for an article showing why the Earth isn't held on the back of a tortoise aimed at specialists.
77.98.22.147 (
talk)
15:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
It's a scam? I don't know maybe. Phil Mason does crank out one video out after the next on everything from creationism, religion, and feminism. His videos are self-published infotainment which earn him money from YouTube views. You put 'solar expert' in quotes as if it doesn't exist - there are experts in solar technology and Phil Mason is not one. A background in physics doesn't make him a relevant expert in every field that involves physics, which is nearly every field in the world. Phil Mason has never been used as a reliable source anywhere else on Wikipedia despite his many videos on every topic imaginable. BTW if you think SolarRoadways is a scam I will be the first to add it to the article if you can produce a reliable third-party source that isn't self-published. But that source will be increasingly hard to find now the technology is in real world trials. -- Green C 16:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Mason is a relevant expert as he has a background in physics, and an absolute bare minimum knowledge of basic physics is all that is needed to know that this is utter nonsense.
No there is no such thing as a solar expert. There are people that are experts in certain aspects of solar technology, sure.
"if you can produce a reliable third-party source that isn't self-published. But that source will be increasingly hard to find now the technology is in real world trials"
I put it to you that you will not find a reliable third-party source that isn't self published that supports it either. Again, this sort of thing is like asking for an article showing why the Earth isn't held on the back of a tortoise. People that have any knowledge of the field dismiss this out of hand, as it is clearly absurd, not write articles to try to determine if it is or isn't.
How is the large number of sources that are purely first-party, self published advertisements by the company that is gaining money from the product allowed, but an impartial scientist is not? Even if you make the argument that Phil Mason shouldn't be a source because he's not an expert purely in the field discussed.. He's considerably closer to an expert in that field than authors of any of the other sources provided are.
Even the sources that have been allowed for criticism are hugely underplayed in the text, for example "Roy Spencer commented that there are more practical places to put solar panels (such as roofs) and that solar panels in roadways couldn't be kept clean enough to be effective." is clearly hugely underplaying Roy Spencer's actual stance (in fact, just the title of the piece shows it to be more than this quote does). Also, why is Roy Spencer permitted but Phil Mason isn't? The only difference is that one is on YouTube, but first-party adverts on YouTube for Solar Roadways is a permitted source, so why is a critical look at them by an impartial expert on YouTube not?
77.98.22.147 ( talk) 17:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
There's a CNN article on this company. Maybe use it. http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/innovation/01/19/smart.roads/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.255.153.253 ( talk) 13:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
It has been well over two years now of this article being clearly non-neutral and reading as an advertisement, with almost the entire article based purely on what the company claims in their adverts. There has been no improvement over two years and little reason to believe there will be in the future. 77.98.22.147 ( talk) 17:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Hey folks, I would like to remove some of these tags from the top of the article. It's basically an expression of dislike for the technology and not the article itself, as far as I can see. If you can not list actionable words and/or sentences but continue to edit war by re-inserting the tags I see no other option to open an RfC and bring broader attention to this article and company. Look forward to hearing from you. -- Green C 01:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Well since you reverted again with generalized complaints that no one could possibly edit to satisfy, unless another editor steps in here, I don't see any option but an RfC. -- Green C 01:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I have no problem with the awards section. However if removing it will help make the article appear more neutral to every IP drive-by editor who saw the "Solar Freakin Roadways" video and now believes Solar Roadways is a scam, posting every complaint tag they can find, I don't mind experimenting with temporarily removing. I do question the use of the POV tag. Which words? -- Green C 15:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
My concern is that (a) the awards themselves are not notable (i.e. don't have their own articles) and (b) that spammy "award" sections are a staple of promotional articles. If the awards themselves are sufficiently notable, or have even been noted in good RSes other than by the awarding organisation (and I don't mean reprinted press releases) then that should go in. These two sound like they might be notable - have RSes talked about these awards themselves at length? - David Gerard ( talk) 17:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Is it necessary to quote Roy Spencer? His speciality is meteorology, but even among scientists, he is an enormously controversial figure. He is not merely a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming as his bio suggests, he actually authors much of the material for the Cornwall Alliance (a group which claims climate change cannot have adverse impacts while God is in control). Is there a more qualified person we could referecne instead of Spencer's zany blog? — TPX 21:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm reading through this article and checking some of the sources and I noticed that there was an article from a site called The Daily Caller as a source. Looking over the Daily Caller article, I noticed very polarizing and sensational word choices, not characteristic of a news article written to the Associated Press Style standards, which include Consistency, Clarity, Accuracy, and Brevity, and thus isn't ethical reporting.
"Solar Road Is ‘Total And Epic’ Failure, 83% Of Its Panels Break In A Week" is not an objective headline, it's an opinion, but the article is not marked as such. The article seems to repeatedly cite videos belonging to a fellow on Youtube whose "about" section is completely devoid of identifying information. At one point the article claims the individual is a scientist, but he seems to just be a guy on the internet with an opinion. Due to his lack of provided information, we have no idea of knowing if this individual is actually an expert in their field or not.
Another statement in the article cites a source as "an electrical engineer," but fail to identify who the engineer is and why they are an expert on the subject. They instead link to a blog video from another blog that spends 20+ minutes lambasting the idea with sarcasm and personal attacks. The sources in this news source are by no means reliable expert sources.
The financial numbers given in the Daily Caller article do not align with the cost listed in the Wikipedia articles, meaning either the numbers on the the Wikipedia article are wrong or the news agency is reporting wrong. This news article attacks other information outlets for having reported positively on the concept in the past. Finally, for what it's worth, Snopes has repeatedly debunked The Daily Caller for misinformation.
I propose the text "None of the 30 panels generated any power after installation,[16] 75% did not light up at installation and four more failed after rainfall.[17]" be replaced with something along the lines of, "A manufacturing error resulted in the 30 panels not generating electricity after installation. The panels are being replaced." All of this can be discerned from source 16 and this allows people to make their own decisions. -- 76.254.2.160 ( talk) 00:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
In this edit, Jeh ( talk · contribs) has re-restored reverted bold new text without attempting a discussion outside of edit summaries.
Earlier I had reverted this text on two grounds. First, that its sourced to a blog. Jeh's edit summary correctly points out that a strict reading of the text shows we're only reporting that some blogger bloke in Australia has a certain opinion. The first question to ask is whether that bloke's opinion has meaningful WP:WEIGHT? To help answer that question, let's move on to Point No. 2, speculation/CrystalBall.
I had also reverted on grounds that the Aussie bloke is running analyses without the engineering details being developed by Solar Roadways. The disputed text says the Aussie "has presented detailed analyses of Solar Roadways' proposals from the electrical engineering point of view." To my knowledge, the details of Solar Roadways' R&D are still proprietary, rendering any "detailed analysis" dependent entirely on speculation. It might be generally informed, with knowledge of the current state of on the shelf technology, but he has to guess what on the shelf technology might be used, and he has to assume the company has not invented any new components, materials, or combinations. Informed speculation is still speculation. In short, this guy is engaged in educated guessing on his blog, and that has ZERO WEIGHT.
You seen to be unfamiliar with the Fermi problem where you can make very good approximations without having exact data on a particular process. This is used very often in science and engineering fields to determine if something is even viable before doing a detailed calculation. Also aren't you speculating that company has "invented any new components, materials, or combinations"? You have a person who did an analysis with informed speculation and another person saying "trust us, we'll figure it out." Why would the Solar Roadway people have more weight? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.24.175.141 ( talk) 12:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Jeh, can you show the fellow had access to the company's R&D and ran detailed analyses on the actual design specs? Now THAT would be interesting and important to include. Some blogger bloke who makes informed guesses? Not so much.
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
What evidence is there that he is a reliable source? Why should we be including his criticism in this article? Perhaps if an actual WP:RS quoted him or something, but sourcing directly to his videos is questionable to me. I'd support removing them and looking for better criticism from better sources, if such exists. — Torchiest talk edits 17:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I believe this would be considered reliable, since Jalopnik is part of Gawker and has editorial oversight. — Torchiest talk edits 00:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
If the site has editorial oversight, which it does, it can be both humorous and reliable. Check the front page. The articles are serious enough; they just throw in funny remarks here and there. I'd thought that if a RS got commentary from someone, that commentary would be considered vetted and reliable as well. — Torchiest talk edits 14:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually, that article above links to a better article here that gets into the costs. That, in turn, links to this article from way back in 2010. Both of those should be reliable sources. — Torchiest talk edits 14:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
e/c
The extremetech article referenced says "According to some maths done by Aaron Saenz, the total cost to redo America’s roadways with Solar Roadways would be $56 trillion". It links to Singuarity Hub as the source for that information. [1] So if you have a quote, then why not mention the original source, not a guy who did nothing but repeat it without checking any numbers on his own? And didn't we agree before Singularity Hub wasn't a reliable source? They currently are used as a reference for the first paragraph, which just repeats what the company officially said. A real news source could be found to reference that. Dream Focus 19:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
http://www.solarroadways.com/images/news/SOTU.jpg But it's from Washington DC-- could that be a reliable source? GangofOne ( talk) 10:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Opposed since the president is speaking about the internet, not solar R&D for roads. Also opposed because a pic of the pres does not inform the reader about the article topic, as images are supposed to do. Also opposed to mentioning the prez statement even in text because we would be assuming the president is refering to this company. Granted this company is the only one possibility I know of, but I still have to apply my special knowledge of that fact to connect the ambiguous statement by the pres to the Solar Roadways company. That's unpermitted OR, no matter how solid I think the assumption may be. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 01:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Opposed 'cause Prez didn't say it in the first place Well duh. Transcript of prez' actual speech lacks the phrase "solar road" or "solar roadway". This image creates a false impression that the phrase "solar roadways" made it into the actual State of the Union speech, thus putting words into Obama's mouth that he did not utter in the speech. The file uploaded to wikipedia credits "some goverment lackey" with the phrase made possible a an online fundraising platform that raised $2.2 million....". "According to some government lackey, a free and open internet made possible...."
<<<<< That's what this file actually supports, and I'm underwhelmed at the weight of some government lackey's opinion. Besides that, it still doesn't name THIS company as THE company, the topic was the internet not the company nor product, the picture does not show Solar Roadways (neither company nor product), and while its OK for the Whitehouse to engage in POV and propaganda, that's not what we do so to stick to our principles we'd have to substitute the president's head with the mug of some government lackey, because that's who said it.
NewsAndEventsGuy (
talk)
03:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
So far, it's been 1.5 YEARS, and ....
This article is the perfect example of the type of article that shouldn't exist, seriously. No spec, no price, no availability, so delete this article until they can actually ship something instead of hot air and vaporware! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 06:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
References
I don't get this section at all. Are they talking about the total weight each panel can support ? If so, what does total vehicle weight have to do with that ? Presumably an entire vehicle is not going to be balanced on one panel. Instead, it should talk about pressures the panel can support and max pressures applied by, say, a heavy vehicle running over a stone on the panel, so it's weight is concentrated on a small area with a high pressure. (Note that asphalt might fail under high pressures, too, but if that just means the stone becomes embedded in the asphalt, that's no big deal, unlike a shattered solar panel.) Also, the link at the end doesn't seem to go anywhere related to the figures given. StuRat ( talk) 04:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
As other editors have pointed out already, most of the references on the "Planned and Potential Capabilities" are made by solar roadways themselves(only one reference is from an external source) and not verified independent testing. Either 1) delete the unverified claims or 2) rephase the language to make it clear these are only claims out of a lab with no successful implementation. Fantastic claims requite equally fantastic references, not vague invocations of potential. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reiuji ( talk • contribs) 12:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Article has been tagged as it is overly promotional in nature and repeats many of the claims of the company from their promotional materials which are not substantiated by independent sources.
This page is enourmously biased in favour of this company, given the neutral position is somewhere between "outright scam" & "idiotic theorycrafting". Given the mass use of primary sources, wonder who's been editing. 89.240.134.224 ( talk) 19:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The continual editing to make any actual criticism as vague as possible is also incredibly sketchy. E.g. Along the lines of "Dr Roy Spencer points out that using the energy they generate to melt snow is in complete contradiction to the physical law of conservation of energy" keeps getting edited to "Dr Roy Spencer criticized the claim that the solar panels in winter will use the energy they generate to melt snowfall." as if it's just someone with a PhD thinking it's difficult, rather than it explicitly violating one of the most well tested principles in all of reality.
77.98.17.0 (
talk)
11:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
And now the completely unnecessary attempts at disparaging the very few people on this page that have criticised the scam. E.g. Claiming Roy Spencer is a detractor of man-made climate change which has no relation to the claim.
This page needs deleting. It is nothing more than lies pretending this scam idea isn't universally discredited by everyone with any knowledge of physics.
92.40.249.245 ( talk) 20:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Safiel's recent edit comment: "Ineligible for PROD, previously kept at AfD, which was very lengthy and contentious, take to AfD if deletion sought, though I think gaining a consensus for deletion is probably unlikely". Furthermore I think deletion is unwarranted: There is a story to tell about SolarRoadways, but it must include WP:DUE attention to the criticism the proposal has attracted and to other negatives. The problems with the article can be solved but we have to be persistent and unified in challenging those who keep removing or watering-down the criticism. Jeh ( talk) 22:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Solar roadways Didn't announce anything. Missouri DOT announced that it applied for a grant and hoped to CROWD fund solar roadways on a rest stop. The statement in the article is a huge leap from that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.235.46.247 ( talk) 22:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Considering how well known this is to be a scam by everyone with the slightest background in physics or electrical engineering, there should be atleast a small mention of this in the article. At the very least mentioning that it is physically impossible for it to ever be viable to put a solar panel flat on the floor rather than raised at angle. 82.42.233.172 ( talk) 03:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
82.42.233.172 ( talk) 19:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
There is a lot more than just some random.guys on the Internet that denounce this. Spend some time researching it and there are plenty of physicists that publicly denounce this. This is not arguable.
82.42.233.172 ( talk) 20:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I will propose an addition later. BlueKanra ( talk) 08:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
References
This article has been nothing but a Battleground since day 1 by anti-Solar Roadway proponents. Please do not contribute to that atmosphere by excessive tagging. Work on improving, not provoking. -- Green C 13:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any benefit to having those tags there at all. Where do you see any terms that qualify is WP:PEACOCK? Kindly list whatever sentence you see as having that problem. Dream Focus 16:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Many technical claims about the capabilities of the system come from its own creators (most sources are www.solarroadways.com). Text should be rewritten to emphasize this ("according to...", "...claim...", etc) or independent sources should be used instead. 138.131.177.63 ( talk) 07:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
It makes reading difficult when every sentence begins "According to Solar Roadways". It reads like a battleground and is tedious to read. It only needs to be done once at the start. The technology is still in R&D no one has a copy of the technology to test and even if it was an independent source they just got the numbers from SR anyway. -- Green C 13:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
How is this section so lacking? This thing only exists as a the-owners-are-pretending-to-be-retarded-enough-to-not-be-an-intentional-scam. What kinda dodgy editing is involved in supressing this? The article should make very clear that the idea is modern day snake oil. 79.74.4.64 ( talk) 19:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
A huge part of the criticism section references video blogs by Phil Mason. A blog might be a good source from an expert (c.f. Roy Spencer blog post immediately above), but Mason is a biochemist, surely not any sort of relevant expert. Even if he seems to have a point, is there a better source for these criticisms? - David Gerard ( talk) 14:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
This page was previously at least fairly balanced (despite being hugely over-positive to an obvious scam), now it reads just like an advert written by Solar Roadways. Phil Mason is certainly a relevant expert, this is not something that requires a 'solar-expert' (whatever that is supposed to be), this is something that anyone with a background in physics realises is poppycock. Your complaint that the source is aimed for a popular audience is something that is impossible to do better, no sources aimed for people with a background in the subject will exist, as it is so blatantly fantasy. Asking for an article aimed at specialists showing why solar roadways is nonsense is like asking for an article showing why the Earth isn't held on the back of a tortoise aimed at specialists.
77.98.22.147 (
talk)
15:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
It's a scam? I don't know maybe. Phil Mason does crank out one video out after the next on everything from creationism, religion, and feminism. His videos are self-published infotainment which earn him money from YouTube views. You put 'solar expert' in quotes as if it doesn't exist - there are experts in solar technology and Phil Mason is not one. A background in physics doesn't make him a relevant expert in every field that involves physics, which is nearly every field in the world. Phil Mason has never been used as a reliable source anywhere else on Wikipedia despite his many videos on every topic imaginable. BTW if you think SolarRoadways is a scam I will be the first to add it to the article if you can produce a reliable third-party source that isn't self-published. But that source will be increasingly hard to find now the technology is in real world trials. -- Green C 16:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Mason is a relevant expert as he has a background in physics, and an absolute bare minimum knowledge of basic physics is all that is needed to know that this is utter nonsense.
No there is no such thing as a solar expert. There are people that are experts in certain aspects of solar technology, sure.
"if you can produce a reliable third-party source that isn't self-published. But that source will be increasingly hard to find now the technology is in real world trials"
I put it to you that you will not find a reliable third-party source that isn't self published that supports it either. Again, this sort of thing is like asking for an article showing why the Earth isn't held on the back of a tortoise. People that have any knowledge of the field dismiss this out of hand, as it is clearly absurd, not write articles to try to determine if it is or isn't.
How is the large number of sources that are purely first-party, self published advertisements by the company that is gaining money from the product allowed, but an impartial scientist is not? Even if you make the argument that Phil Mason shouldn't be a source because he's not an expert purely in the field discussed.. He's considerably closer to an expert in that field than authors of any of the other sources provided are.
Even the sources that have been allowed for criticism are hugely underplayed in the text, for example "Roy Spencer commented that there are more practical places to put solar panels (such as roofs) and that solar panels in roadways couldn't be kept clean enough to be effective." is clearly hugely underplaying Roy Spencer's actual stance (in fact, just the title of the piece shows it to be more than this quote does). Also, why is Roy Spencer permitted but Phil Mason isn't? The only difference is that one is on YouTube, but first-party adverts on YouTube for Solar Roadways is a permitted source, so why is a critical look at them by an impartial expert on YouTube not?
77.98.22.147 ( talk) 17:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
There's a CNN article on this company. Maybe use it. http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/innovation/01/19/smart.roads/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.255.153.253 ( talk) 13:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
It has been well over two years now of this article being clearly non-neutral and reading as an advertisement, with almost the entire article based purely on what the company claims in their adverts. There has been no improvement over two years and little reason to believe there will be in the future. 77.98.22.147 ( talk) 17:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Hey folks, I would like to remove some of these tags from the top of the article. It's basically an expression of dislike for the technology and not the article itself, as far as I can see. If you can not list actionable words and/or sentences but continue to edit war by re-inserting the tags I see no other option to open an RfC and bring broader attention to this article and company. Look forward to hearing from you. -- Green C 01:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Well since you reverted again with generalized complaints that no one could possibly edit to satisfy, unless another editor steps in here, I don't see any option but an RfC. -- Green C 01:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I have no problem with the awards section. However if removing it will help make the article appear more neutral to every IP drive-by editor who saw the "Solar Freakin Roadways" video and now believes Solar Roadways is a scam, posting every complaint tag they can find, I don't mind experimenting with temporarily removing. I do question the use of the POV tag. Which words? -- Green C 15:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
My concern is that (a) the awards themselves are not notable (i.e. don't have their own articles) and (b) that spammy "award" sections are a staple of promotional articles. If the awards themselves are sufficiently notable, or have even been noted in good RSes other than by the awarding organisation (and I don't mean reprinted press releases) then that should go in. These two sound like they might be notable - have RSes talked about these awards themselves at length? - David Gerard ( talk) 17:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Is it necessary to quote Roy Spencer? His speciality is meteorology, but even among scientists, he is an enormously controversial figure. He is not merely a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming as his bio suggests, he actually authors much of the material for the Cornwall Alliance (a group which claims climate change cannot have adverse impacts while God is in control). Is there a more qualified person we could referecne instead of Spencer's zany blog? — TPX 21:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm reading through this article and checking some of the sources and I noticed that there was an article from a site called The Daily Caller as a source. Looking over the Daily Caller article, I noticed very polarizing and sensational word choices, not characteristic of a news article written to the Associated Press Style standards, which include Consistency, Clarity, Accuracy, and Brevity, and thus isn't ethical reporting.
"Solar Road Is ‘Total And Epic’ Failure, 83% Of Its Panels Break In A Week" is not an objective headline, it's an opinion, but the article is not marked as such. The article seems to repeatedly cite videos belonging to a fellow on Youtube whose "about" section is completely devoid of identifying information. At one point the article claims the individual is a scientist, but he seems to just be a guy on the internet with an opinion. Due to his lack of provided information, we have no idea of knowing if this individual is actually an expert in their field or not.
Another statement in the article cites a source as "an electrical engineer," but fail to identify who the engineer is and why they are an expert on the subject. They instead link to a blog video from another blog that spends 20+ minutes lambasting the idea with sarcasm and personal attacks. The sources in this news source are by no means reliable expert sources.
The financial numbers given in the Daily Caller article do not align with the cost listed in the Wikipedia articles, meaning either the numbers on the the Wikipedia article are wrong or the news agency is reporting wrong. This news article attacks other information outlets for having reported positively on the concept in the past. Finally, for what it's worth, Snopes has repeatedly debunked The Daily Caller for misinformation.
I propose the text "None of the 30 panels generated any power after installation,[16] 75% did not light up at installation and four more failed after rainfall.[17]" be replaced with something along the lines of, "A manufacturing error resulted in the 30 panels not generating electricity after installation. The panels are being replaced." All of this can be discerned from source 16 and this allows people to make their own decisions. -- 76.254.2.160 ( talk) 00:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)