Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Jevons paradox/1

Jevons paradox

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Procedurally closed: none of the four steps in Wikipedia:Good article reassessment have been followed. Feel free to re-submit, but first follow steps #2-#4. (I believe #1 is now redundant but you may feel the need to follow that as well.) CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article has more than half of it dedicated to the dispute of the potentially incorrect application of Jevons Paradox to energy efficiency (specifically fuel consumption), as though one or more individuals did not like what the paradox entails, and therefore dedicated more than half of the article to debunking/criticizing the application of the Jevons Paradox. The article subsequently gives substantial undue weight towards this argument, and also violates the NPOV guidelines. It is for these reasons why I do not believe Jevons Paradox can be listed as a good article, at least until these problems are addressed and corrected.

Temeku (talk) 04:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tomandjerry211

Delist per above and more

Issues with 1a and 1b

Citations in the lead are unecessary per WP:LEADCITE
Incosistency: "100 percent" and "100%".

Issues with 2a, 2b, and 2c

Several paragraphs lack citations
Possible OR due to the lack of cites
Several Unreliable sources

Issues with 4

Per above. Needs a lot of work to keep as a GA.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 21:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Lawrence Khoo

I just noticed this request for reassessment. This nomination has violated guidelines for reassessment, as there has been no talk page notice, no discussion on the talk page about problems or suggestions for improvements, and no notification of major contributors. I saw this article to GA status and will work to retain GA. Looking through GA requirements, I would note that it still meets all criteria for GA.

Responding to Tomandjerry211's issues:

Issues with 1a and 1b

Citations in the lead are unecessary per WP:LEADCITE
- Citations are permitted if statements have been challenged in the past. WP:LEADCITE says "The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." They are there because of previous disputes, I will gladly remove them if it's an issue.
Incosistency: "100 percent" and "100%".
- Fixed

Issues with 2a, 2b, and 2c

Several paragraphs lack citations
- Incorrect. All major paragraphs are cited.
Possible OR due to the lack of cites
- Incorrect. All major paragraphs are cited.
Several Unreliable sources
- Incorrect. Most citations are to refereed journals, looking through the list of references, I cannot see a single source that can be deemed 'unreliable'.

Issues with 4

Per above.
- Kindly elaborate. There is no 'one' view being pushed. The article reflects the current literature on Jevons paradox, and walks a fine line between the "Jevons paradox dooms us" camp and the "Jevons paradox is bunk" camp.

LK (talk) 06:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Temeku

Also:

Introduction is too long; four paragraphs relative to the article as a whole. Longer than any section after it. The paragraph beginning with "The Jevons paradox has been used to argue that energy conservation may be futile, (...)" should be reworded (and shortened) or removed completely. Gives unnecessary emphasis on Energy Conservation Policy section.
Energy Conservation Policy section is larger than all other sections. Needs to be reduced to a more appropriate length, such as that of the Khazzoom-Brookes postulate section above it.

Temeku (talk) 00:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Issues about weight in the lead have been addressed. Rather than repeat myself here, I would direct interested editors to the talk page of the article. LK (talk) 02:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]