Talk:Stella power stations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Stella Power Station)
Good articleStella power stations has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 5, 2008Good article nomineeListed
November 17, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
March 15, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

Demolition dates[edit]

Does anybody know the dates of the demolition of Stella South or of the Stella North chimneys/turbine hall? Fintan264 (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closure Date[edit]

Does anybody know the exact closure date? All I can find is that it was in 1991 sometime. Fintan264 (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible error in Ref[edit]

I know that the article accurately reflects the statement given in one of its references. However I suspect that the reference is wrong. It is likely that both power stations comprised of a number of 60 MW generating units: five and four, so the generating capacities should be 300 and 240 MW - not 300 and 224 MW. Pyrotec (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds very likely, but we don't have references to cite that. I've always had trouble finding references for the capacity. I can't find the reference which states that stella south was 300MW, if there ever was one, I cannot remember. What can we do about this? Fintan264 (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The current Ref 1 gives the total output for Stella as 524 MW; but I suspect that it should be 540 MW. The "decisions" to build power stations, at that time, were part of a forward-planning process of typically five years; it then took another 4 to 5 years to order the boilers, generators, steel work, etc, for the power station, design the site layouts and commission the power stations. The article says that building work started in in 1951, so planning must have started in about 1945/47. In November 1947 the Ministry of Supply issued a Statutory Order that turbo-alternators for the home market could only be 30 MW, at standard steam conditions, or 60 MW, at advanced steam conditions. This order remained in force until July 1950. After that they got "bigger". So the two Stella power stations could only have been built using multiples of 30 or 60 MW units; and 524 is not a multiple of 30, but 540 MW is. Assuming the information in the article used is correct, e.g. five and four units, then they were 60 MW units giving 300 MW and 240 MW power station capacities. As you say, the problem is finding citations.Pyrotec (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I assume you must have a reference for all that you just wrote there, would that not suffice? Fintan264 (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have two references, they support my theory that the 524 MW figure is more likely to be 540 MW; they also support the theory that 524 MW is wrong, but they don't directly confirm that the power stations were 300 & 240 MW. They are:
  • Hannah, Leslie (1979). Electricity before Nationalisation: A Study of the Development of The Electricity Supply Industry in Britain to 1948. London and Basingstoke: The MacMillan Press Ltd. ISBN 0-333-22086-2.
  • Hannah, Leslie (1982). Engineers, Managers, and Politicians: The First Fifteen Years of Nationalised Electricity Supply in Britain. London and Basingstoke: The MacMillan Press Ltd. (and Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press (ISBN 0-8018-2862-7)).
Pyrotec (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't really know where or how to use those references. If they're used would you mind doing it? Thanks for copyediting and correcting the article again. Fintan264 (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AH! I have found the reference which states stella north as having a capacity of 224MW. It is here on page 107. Fintan264 (talk) 12:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merry go round (MGR) trains[edit]

Does anybody know if the stations were converted to receive MGR trains? I'm sure I read somewhere that MGRs became the standard of UK coal-fired power stations in the 1970s or 80s. Fintan264 (talk) 22:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stella power station coal newcastle.jpg suggests the MGR HAA wagons were sent to the station. Does nobody have any information on coal unloading at the power station? Fintan264 (talk) 15:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"job creation"[edit]

The development is still expanding, and has the potential to create up to 5,000 jobs.

Says who?

If Tesco opens a new branch somewhere that may employ as many as 200 people, does it thereby "create as many as 200 jobs"? (What about the jobs that are lost elsewhere because the consuming masses have switched to Tesco? Can we just ignore these?) Morenoodles (talk) 09:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to work now on getting that couple of lines referenced properly, but do you feel the word "create" should be replaced with something like provide? Fintan264 (talk) 11:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The whole thing smells of developerspeak to me, but I have to concede that you're quoting somebody in a public body that ought to be disinterested, so I suppose it should/can be left as is. Morenoodles (talk) 07:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review[edit]

OK, I'll agree that it needed a copyedit. I'll point out everything here and then you can fix them if you agree. Recurring themes:

  • Refering to it in the singular or plural - was it called Stella Power Station or the Stella Power Stations? Should you be using station's or stations'? The article needs to be consistent.
  • clausy sentences - these can often be simplified. and generally too many commas, including inconsistent serial comma use. These are easy to search for.
  • Units - The article is a mess of metric and imperial units. Can we have a consistent one appearing first. At present we have MW, ft, tonnes, cubic m, mi, lb, acres and km.

specific points:

  • 'which stood as a landmark in the Tyne valley for over 40 years. They stood on either side' - too much standing?
  • The second sentence in the above is hugely clausy. How about 'Standing on either side of a bend of the River Tyne: Stella South Power Station was the larger and was sited near Blaydon in Gateshead and Stella North Power Station was situated near Lemington in Newcastle.' ?
  • How about 'Their name originates from Stella Hall, a manor house close to Stella South, although by the time of the power stations' construction it had been demolished and replaced by a housing estate.'? Also this implies that Stella Hall had recently been demolished. Is this the case?
  • How about 'Their operation required trains on both sides of the river to supply coal, and access for flat iron barges to transport ash to the North Sea for dumping.' ?
  • 'two of the last industrial buildings on Tyneside' - really? This doesn't fit well with the industrial park mentioned next either which you'd have to assume would contain industrial buildings on Tyneside.
  • 'Stella Haugh had been site of the racecourse, used for horse racing, where the Blaydon Races were held' - get rid of 'used for horse racing'
  • 'The underwater electrical work' - I don't know what this would involve but am interested why there was any? I'd imagine you'd just lay cables across the river bed using a boat. How is Buster going missing later anything to do with the power station?
  • 'During construction of the South Station a fault occurred, closing down the generators' - why were the generators operating during construction?
  • How about 'Dunston Power Station could not take the extra load and also shut down, creating a total blackout in Tyneside.' ?
  • When 'Units' are first mentioned it is not clear what they are. I assume that this is what is later called a 'generating set', which again is not defined when 1st encountered but 2 paragraphs later.
  • How about - 'The power station had the "brick-cathedral" style of design popular in the 1930s and 1940s and that can still, as of 2009, be seen at Battersea Power Station in London.'
  • 'were of the typical hyperbolic natural draft design' - is this how they are usually described? Should it maybe be 'typical, hyperbolic, natural-draft design' to make it clear these all refer to the design and that it isn't a hyperbolic draft etc. A link might help.
  • 'blasted' - as in blast furnace? doesn't blasting refer to the air going into the bottom and not the fuel which goes in separately?
  • 'fed into it by a conveyor belt system' - is it the bunker that is fed? if so 'fed by a conveyor...' would do, or the generating set? In that case it is unclear and needs rewording.
  • you have mentioned the builders of some of the parts such as boilers, conveyor belts etc, are these firms mentioned because they are specially notable, the only parts bought in from outside, or because these are the only parts you know about?
  • 'the most powerful lighting installation' - how powerful?
  • 'railway sidings were built to handle it' - does 'it' refer to the railway or the coal?
  • 'come enter' - ?
  • there are quite a lot of problems with the paragraph that starts 'The Scotswood, Newburn...' but I also think there is possibly too much detail in this paragraph so it might make sense to edit it down first.
  • 'No.20 and No.21' - so what was the 3rd one?
  • 'There was no violence, as lorry drivers and others sympathized with the strike and refused to go past the pickets' - I don't know the details of this strike but the ref is from a miner, probably not an unbiased source. Given the police advice it is possible the lorry drivers didn't cross the picket for another reason.
  • 'thermal power station, to' - why the comma
  • How about - 'After use the water was cooled before discharge back into the river.'
  • Ref 41 does not say that the warm water attracted otters and seals. Please rewrite. I don't have time to check every reference, can you please make sure that the article is only claiming what is written in the other references too.
  • Too much detail about the names of the ash removal boats
  • 'it 3 mi (4.8 km) in the North Sea' - 3 mi into the north sea or 3 mi away from the power station?
  • 'They were able to carry 500 tonnes of ash on each trip.' - short sentence that could probably be added to another sentence much earlier in this section.
  • 'By the end of the 1960s, Bessie Surtees operated ash dumping duties on the Tyne alone.' - obvious given what else has been said already
  • How about - 'After almost 37 years of use they were decommissioned in 1991 as they were outdated and uneconomical to operate.'
  • 'produced much less electricity' - poor use of language. Try 'electrical power' or 'had lower generating capacity'.
  • How about - '27 January 1997 and its bunker bay building was demolished on 22 June.'
  • 'Before the reclamation, its site was littered with blocks of graphite.' - short sentence, why not delete and put 'graphite block littered site' in the 1st sentence of the paragraph.
  • How about - 'The reclamation of the two neighbouring sites was at 230 acres (93 ha) one of the UK's largest land reclamation schemes and was completed in 2000.'?
  • 'There had been plans' - when?
  • 'Before the land reclamation, the site was known to contain Chaenorhinum minus, a species of toadflax.' - why is this important? Link?
  • How about - 'Due to the significant reclamation on the two sites' ?
  • How about - 'three large sub-stations that still supply the local region' ?
  • How about - 'Much of this electrical power is generated in Scotland's'
  • The social and cultural impact section is rather weak. The screen appearances are pretty minor and the last paragraph about the grid supply seems to be economic/industrial rather than social/cultural. Did many people move nearby to work there? What happened to them when the power station shut? Does it appear in any artwork?

Things that I'd like to see but are missing fall into the category of general details about the power station operation such as:

  • what was the normal (rather than peak) power output of the stations? how did this compare to other power stations at the time they were built?
  • did the sets all run constantly or were they often turned off due to lack of demand or for maintenance?
  • how many people worked there?
  • were there any safety problems?
  • what was the efficiency of the system when built compared to other exisiting power stations? was the design in any way new? if they were closed due to being uneconomical what had changed since they were built?
  • Was it particularly polluting either to the air or the sea where the ash was dumped?

JMiall₰ 14:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what was the right name?[edit]

It's a great pity that this didn't make it to FA. But its failure is in the past. Next time around, success.

The first objection above in "Peer Review" is:

Refering to it in the singular or plural - was it called Stella Power Station or the Stella Power Stations? Should you be using station's or stations'? The article needs to be consistent.

I know nothing about the power station(s) other than what I read here, but my first guess was that it was called both, most likely Station from far away and Stations from close up. Thus a demand for consistency could be unrealistic.

However, Stella Power Station(s) had an important position in a nationalized industry. I'd guess that it/they was/were officially referred to in just one way, at least as long as the copyeditor was awake. This PDF, from a later quasi-official body, treats the two as separate. If the only official names were "Stella North Power Station" and "Stella South Power Station", then even "Stella Power Stations" would be misleading, its capitalization wrongly implying that it was a proper name.

And it gets worse. The proper name(s) may have changed over time. I believe that Wikipedia usually adopts the newest name, but I suppose it could/should make an exception if an earlier name was used for a much longer period.

Somebody who (unlike me) has access to a large British library is just going to have to look at official CEA/CEGB/NP materials. When we've worked out what name is best, we can start rewriting it accordingly (of course not pretending that other names have been used). And then we can look at all the other points raised above. And eventually, FA. Morenoodles (talk) 10:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well to open, thanks a lot for picking up this article again; I'd really just dropped it on the back burner after the failure it got, and I was too daunted by the huge list. Thanks also for your generally positive tone.
I am too young too know what the station(s) was/were refered to really. You're right in saying that, at a distance, they were one, but more locally they were probably seen as separate. CAE, CEGB and NP material will be essential in deciding this, and many other points raised in the last peer review. The end notes on pollution, operating hours and workforce etc are unlikely to be addressed unless it comes from the horse's mouth. I haven't a clue where this information would be found though. Would npower (the current form of National Power) have anything? Fintan264 (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in replying.

I looked in Copac for publications by the CEGB. There are dismayingly many, most held by very few libraries. Curiously, many have "south" in their titles but few have "north". I noticed mention of "North Eastern Electricity Board" as an author. This isn't mentioned in your article, but anyway the NEEB has many relevant-sounding publications. I also start to wonder whether the article hasn't got something wrong about the relationship of Stella to the CEGB -- how could Stella, situated where it was, not have been part of NEEB?

I'm not in Britain and probably can't help here. And you'll probably need access to a good library, the kind where most of the stuff is in closed stacks. However, if you plan carefully and know what you're looking for, you might not need to spend much time in the library. Good luck! Morenoodles (talk) 07:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Area electricity boards, such as the NEEB, did not, in the time frame of this article generate electricity - that was the job of the CEGB and before that the CEA. Area electricity boards bought electricity wholesale from the GEGB and sold it to domestic and industrial consumers. However, as it takes at least three-years to design, build and commission a power station, the NEEB might have started the initial design work before the BEA was formed.Pyrotec (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All right then, CEGB. Which large libraries are accessible to you? Morenoodles (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Well, the Newcastle city library is currently being rebuilt, due to open later this year. Also locally, there are the Tyne and Wear, Durham and Northumberland archives. I went to the Tyne and Wear archives a few months ago, but they seemed fairly limited in their collection of books, with next to no information on the Stella Power Stations. I don't know a lot about the other two local archives. Fintan264 (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The power stations were referred to by the then owner as both "Stella Power Stations" - page 51 of (n/a 1) (n/d, but pre-1953/54, possibly 1952/53) Power and Prosperity. London: British Electricity Authority; and "Stella North" & "Stella South" in Appendix 2 ("Generating Plant under Construction or Planned at 31st December 1953 in the Central Authority's Programmes to the end of 1959"); and in (n/a 2) (n/d, but pre 1 April 1955) The Construction of Power Stations: Observations of the British Electricity Authority on the Report of the Committee of Enquiry into Economy in the Construction of Power Stations. London: British Electricity Authority, Appendix A ("New Power Stations released for Construction since Vesting Day and the Sizes of Sets they will house").Pyrotec (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, Fintan, it may be that Pyrotec already has all the information that's needed. Pyrotec, let's get this as clear as we can, because there seems no limit to some other people's pedantry, sorry I mean because we have an unlimited desire to get things right. In the first example, is "Stella Power Stations" so capitalized in regular text (as opposed to a chapter title, caption, or similar)? Morenoodles (talk) 07:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As we're are being that precise. The British Electricity Authority does not in general use capital Ps & Ss for power station(s), even for particular power stations, i.e. on page 51 (see above) it says "Stella power stations", on page 53 "Carrington power station", on page 55 "Uskmouth A power station", on page 80 "Keadby power station" (these are all photographs). Appendix 2 is a Table of Generating Plant, column 1 is entitled "Generating Division", column 2 "New Power Stations" and column 3, "Extensions to Power Stations"; however, in columns 2 & 3, the stations are just listed as, e.g. "Northfleet", "Marchwood", "Hams Hall C", (and "Stella A North", "Stella B South"), etc. Moreover, in Chapter and Section titles (and Table Column Headers) every word (except: "for", "at", "of", "and" & "to") starts with a capital letter; so the only reference to "Power Station"(s) occurs in Chapter and Section titles and Table Column Headers (in and the Contents).Pyrotec (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your patience. I seems a good idea to call them "Stella power stations" and to title the article accordingly. But let's not rush this.
Pyrotec, in the kind of contexts where your materials talk of "Stella power stations" (so (not-) capitalized), do they also talk of "Stella North" or of "Stella north"?
(If this extremely trivial question makes you explode with rage--Why are we worrying about capitalization when the planet is warming, the economy is collapsing, thousands are dying of AIDS, etc.?!--you have my full sympathy. Personally, I couldn't give a damn about this capitalisation; I'm just trying to anticipate [avoid] future obstructive pedantry by others.) Morenoodles (talk) 08:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Woops, I see what has gone wrong, my fingers could not keep up with my eyes. In the list above, for Appendix A, what I should have written for N. Eastern Division was "Blyth A", "Stella North (Nr. Newcastle-upon-Tyne)" and "Stella South". I inadvertently put "Stella A" and "Stella B". Now corrected. Yes "Stella power stations" in the photograph; and "Stella North (Nr. Newcastle-upon-Tyne)" and "Stella South" in the Appendices.Pyrotec (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All in all it seems that "Stella North power station", "Stella South power station" and "Stella power stations" would be right. Do you think that if the article were changed in this way, other people would pop up to say that we were being inconsistent with Wikipedia practice, by which we have Dunston Power Station, Battersea Power Station, etc.? (My own inclination would be to go with lowercase, and eventually change to "Battersea power station" and the rest. Though I can't work up enthusiasm for this.) Morenoodles (talk) 06:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, which is right; following Wikipedia practice or following official names? I find it all pretty pedantic (why I've been keeping my nose out of the discussion, waiting for this first issue to be resolved before cracking on with the rest), and these are questions I haven't answers for. However in my opinion, I feel that we should be following the officially used names, but so many power stations (in the UK at least) had multiple or series' of power stations on a single site (two sites in Stella's case), it would be a pretty tall order to go around and move all the articles to a lower case "power station" and stick an "s" on the end. FYI: Battersea would end up "Battersea power stations" as strictly speaking it consisted of A and B stations, which were built opened and closed at different times. I don't think I've ever seen anyone refer to it as anything other than the singular. Mind, the Stella stations were quite definably separate structures, so these cases aren't comparable. Fintan264 (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have a single article covering Portishead power station, which for several decades was both Portishead A and Portishead B in operation, and there are similar articles covering other multiple power stations. However, for some (nuclear) power stations there are separate articles, such as Hinkley Point A nuclear power station, Hinkley Point B nuclear power station and Hinkley Point C nuclear power station. There are also other sites where the A station was demolished before the B station became operational. My preference would be lower case p & s. I'm not too fussed, at the moment as to whether we have to add an "s" onto the end of "station" to differentiate bewtween single and multiple power stations.Pyrotec (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh but it's not just pretty pedantic, it's extremely pedantic. Yes, ridiculous. But better now than later as part of a FAC. Further, if lowercase was used, excellent; because lowercase makes no claim to being a proper name and thus can't be a mistaken attempt at a proper name. I suggest "Stella power stations" for the pair and for the title of the article, and "Stella North" or "Stella North power station" (likewise for South). How's that? Morenoodles (talk) 08:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it. Fintan264 (talk) 11:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done (as I've noticed you've noticed), and double redirects fixed. I hope I haven't screwed anything up. Morenoodles (talk) 11:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Clausy sentences" and commas[edit]

Point 2 of the peer review talks about clausy sentences and an overuse of commas. Anybody good with grammar and willing to get this resolved because I'm not sure what needs doing? Fintan264 (talk) 21:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, about this, I am sorry, really. Yes, the diminution of commas, that is a goal, to which I aspire.
I think my grammar is good enough. I'll print out the article some day soon and read it on paper. This tends to show up faults that aren't so obvious on the screen (other than to the FAC inquisitors). Morenoodles (talk) 09:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photos[edit]

As others may have noticed, over the last week or so I've tweaked most of the photos. I'm confident that I've made big improvements to two. The others are improved too, I think, but I'm not entirely sure. See for yourselves: I've left the originals at Commons, giving new filenames to the replacements--so if you look at an older version of this article you'll see it with the older versions of the photos intact.

(The very sharp-eyed will notice that in the first photo I seem to have introduced some grit to the sky. What happened is that I very deliberately based the new image not on the latest File:Stella North & South Power stations.jpg, from which a bird had been edited out, but on an older version, with bird. I like the bird.)

The photo of the abandoned bridge seems OK as is.

Both halves of File:Stella old and new.jpg seem to me to be leaning very slightly to the left. To fix this I'd have to split, rotate, crop, and rejoin. Is there interest in this?

File:Stella riverside crescent.JPG gives me river sickness. I can't work on it, though: I'd need the originals, in order to try afresh at stitching them. But I've never tried stitching a panorama. Is there interest in this? Morenoodles (talk) 09:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean with the river sickness in File:Stella riverside crescent.JPG. There are no original pieces to this image, it was stitched together automatically on the camera. However I've never been happy with it as an image, it's far too grey and what the image is focusing on takes up a very small part of it. It's also outdated, as a lot more has appeared on the site in the past year and a half (I believe part of the site is now open to the public). I'll go over and take some photos to replace it soon I think. Fintan264 (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First off, thank you for expressing no interest in a reworking of File:Stella old and new.jpg: minimal benefit for a large expenditure of time. (I regretted that offer minutes after I made it.)
Actually I like the greyness of File:Stella riverside crescent.JPG. But as you say it's not as informative as it might be. I'm looking forward to the replacement. Remember to get the camera to serve you with the original images. Morenoodles (talk) 09:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There wasn't as much of the site open to access as I had anticipated but I've still managed to get an alright photo of the houses on the site so far. I've added it to the article now. Fintan264 (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This version I think better expresses the reality of cookie-cutter "development" in the grim pursuit of profit. Morenoodles (talk) 09:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's a real let down. We had a beautiful river that managed to flout the laws of physics, and now we have some boring bean-counters' idea of "development", something that could have come straight out of Julian Baggini's "Everytown". It seems to me that British architecture consists of a superb 1% and an atrocious 97% (I'm unsure about the remaining 2%) and this is very definitely in the 97%. I suppose companies will "design" (mindlessly reproduce) this kind of place for people who've been surrounded by such places all their lives and are unaware that anything better could exist. Ugh. Morenoodles (talk) 09:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the rant above. If we can't have a panorama of the river, can we at least have a photo of the "development" of the north site? Morenoodles (talk) 08:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, next sunny day I've got nothing on I'll have a walk along and get a few shots. Fintan264 (talk) 19:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What no sunny days? Morenoodles (talk) 12:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough free time when it's been sunny sadly. Fintan264 (talk) 12:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the exurban "design" of the north is as dreary as that of the south, sunshine isn't going to help it. Morenoodles (talk) 08:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right I've been out today and I've uploaded the fruits of my wander round the place to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Newburn_Riverside Not sure what to add to add to the article or where so someone have a gander and decide for me. Fintan264 (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shall do within the next few days (if nobody beats me to it). In the meantime, thank you for the photography. Morenoodles (talk) 08:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I'm sorry to have broken up the pattern of photos on the right, but I couldn't think of a better alternative to the design I used. Morenoodles (talk) 08:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As of[edit]

The article says "As of 2009, the sites are undergoing redevelopment: the North site into a large business and industrial park, the South into a housing estate." Would it be accurate to change that to "As of 2010", or would some other change be better? Morenoodles (talk) 08:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could this be changed to "As of 2007", as this is when work began on the south site? Fintan264 (talk) 11:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, that makes no sense to me. If you like, "Starting in 2007, the sites underwent redevelopment..." Morenoodles (talk) 08:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Makes a lot more sense. Fintan264 (talk) 11:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To sum up[edit]

I did a lot more research on the stations in the past couple of months, and the only unanswered points from the last peer review are as follows:

  • 'the most powerful lighting installation' - how powerful?
  • 'No.20 and No.21' - so what was the 3rd one?
  • The social and cultural impact section is rather weak. The screen appearances are pretty minor and the last paragraph about the grid supply seems to be economic/industrial rather than social/cultural. Did many people move nearby to work there? What happened to them when the power station shut? Does it appear in any artwork?
  • What was the normal (rather than peak) power output of the stations? how did this compare to other power stations at the time they were built?
  • Did the sets all run constantly or were they often turned off due to lack of demand or for maintenance?
  • How many people worked there?
  • Were there any safety problems?
  • What was the efficiency of the system when built compared to other exisiting power stations? was the design in any way new? if they were closed due to being uneconomical what had changed since they were built?
  • Another copyedit will be needed

I've had no luck when researching these points. I'm just pointing this out as it's a shame that the article came fairly close to featured status then nothing happened. Would ALL the above points need satisfying to bring the article to featured status? If so a lot of very specific information is needed. Fintan264 (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it. I do very much hope that this becomes a(n) FA. Morenoodles (talk) 07:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Link rot[edit]

This article cites dead links aplenty.

But there's hope. I've made a a very small start, and hope to continue. Morenoodles (talk) 07:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately:

Morenoodles (talk) 08:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stella House[edit]

This PDF makes it clear that the NHS is going to move into Stella House but doesn't present much detail. Better source needed. Morenoodles (talk) 07:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Stella power stations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Stella power stations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental impact[edit]

It is claimed that basking sharks 'were known to be attracted to the area' by the warm water discharged into the river from the power stations' cooling systems. It is extremely unlikely that basking sharks - a very large marine fish - ever penetrated this far up the River Tyne. The reference for this claim is a developer's publicity document and this is not a credible source for a claim of this kind. I suggest that unless a more credible source can be found to substantiate this 'fact', it should be withdrawn from the article. In any case attracting a fish far outside its natural habitat would not constitute evidence for a lack of a deleterious impact from the cooling water - if anything the opposite is true. Coleophora (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stella_power_stations&oldid=1210552814"