127:
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.
212:
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
326:
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
126:
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
297:
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"
330:
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.
103:
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.)
350:
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.
69:
65:
100:
17:
114:
50:
42:
359:
342:
312:
237:"The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article."
202:
138:
119:
213:
will work to retain GA. Looking through GA requirements, I would note that it still meets all criteria for GA.
197:
90:
355:
308:
110:
192:
58:
232:
226:
161:
351:
304:
105:
338:
134:
376:
239:
They are there because of previous disputes, I will gladly remove them if it's an issue.
279:
35:
370:
334:
130:
278:
Incorrect. Most citations are to refereed journals, looking through the
231:
Citations are permitted if statements have been challenged in the past.
282:, I cannot see a single source that can be deemed 'unreliable'.
327:
85:
77:
46:
191:Per above. Needs a lot of work to keep as a GA.--
99:: Procedurally closed: none of the four steps in
8:
270:Incorrect. All major paragraphs are cited.
262:Incorrect. All major paragraphs are cited.
225:Citations in the lead are unecessary per
160:Citations in the lead are unecessary per
244:Incosistency: "100 percent" and "100%".
216:Responding to Tomandjerry211's issues:
166:Incosistency: "100 percent" and "100%".
267:Possible OR due to the lack of cites
7:
179:Possible OR due to the lack of cites
101:Knowledge:Good article reassessment
18:Knowledge:Good article reassessment
259:Several paragraphs lack citations
24:
176:Several paragraphs lack citations
86:Watch article reassessment page
1:
144:Comments from Tomandjerry211
275:Several Unreliable sources
208:Comments from Lawrence Khoo
393:
254:Issues with 2a, 2b, and 2c
182:Several Unreliable sources
171:Issues with 2a, 2b, and 2c
139:04:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
360:02:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
343:00:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
313:06:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
203:21:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
120:14:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
220:Issues with 1a and 1b
155:Issues with 1a and 1b
318:Comments from Temeku
151:per above and more
280:list of references
91:Most recent review
201:
198:Let's have a chat
118:
384:
195:
108:
104:
88:
82:
73:
54:
392:
391:
387:
386:
385:
383:
382:
381:
367:
366:
320:
291:
256:
222:
210:
189:
173:
157:
146:
95:
84:
63:
40:
34:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
390:
388:
380:
379:
369:
368:
365:
364:
363:
362:
332:
331:
328:
319:
316:
302:
301:
300:
299:
290:
287:
286:
285:
284:
283:
273:
272:
271:
265:
264:
263:
255:
252:
251:
250:
249:
248:
242:
241:
240:
221:
218:
209:
206:
193:Tomandjerry211
188:
185:
184:
183:
180:
177:
172:
169:
168:
167:
164:
156:
153:
145:
142:
124:
123:
122:
93:
30:
28:Jevons paradox
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
389:
378:
375:
374:
372:
361:
357:
353:
349:
348:
347:
346:
345:
344:
340:
336:
329:
325:
324:
323:
317:
315:
314:
310:
306:
296:
295:
293:
292:
289:Issues with 4
288:
281:
277:
276:
274:
269:
268:
266:
261:
260:
258:
257:
253:
246:
245:
243:
238:
234:
230:
229:
228:
224:
223:
219:
217:
214:
207:
205:
204:
199:
194:
187:Issues with 4
186:
181:
178:
175:
174:
170:
165:
163:
159:
158:
154:
152:
150:
143:
141:
140:
136:
132:
128:
121:
116:
112:
107:
102:
98:
94:
92:
87:
81:
80:
76:
71:
67:
62:
61:
57:
52:
48:
44:
39:
38:
33:
32:
29:
26:
19:
333:
321:
303:
236:
215:
211:
190:
148:
147:
129:
125:
106:CRGreathouse
96:
78:
74:
60:Article talk
59:
55:
36:
27:
294:Per above.
233:WP:LEADCITE
227:WP:LEADCITE
162:WP:LEADCITE
47:visual edit
371:Category
70:history
51:history
37:Article
377:GAR/60
335:Temeku
322:Also:
149:Delist
131:Temeku
97:Result
298:camp.
247:Fixed
235:says
79:Watch
16:<
356:talk
339:talk
309:talk
135:talk
66:edit
43:edit
373::
358:)
352:LK
341:)
311:)
305:LK
137:)
113:|
89:•
83:•
68:|
49:|
45:|
354:(
337:(
307:(
200:)
196:(
133:(
117:)
115:c
111:t
109:(
75:·
72:)
64:(
56:·
53:)
41:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.