Having recently created my Wikipedia user account, I am initiating my first steps towards understanding the world of Wikipedia articles by critically evaluating the Wikipedia page on India’s national policy on solar energy – the Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission (also known as NSM). I have picked this article for my first foray into the world of Wiki because it is a topic I am very familiar with. For close to three years, I have worked for Bridge to India, a solar energy business-consulting firm in India. I have had to deeply understand the policy from its early stages starting in December 2010, track its progress over the years, develop policy briefs advising the Indian government on ways to improve the policy, and consult international and domestic solar companies on the most appropriate strategy to take advantage of the policy.
In terms of comprehensiveness, the article covers some key aspects of the policy but falls short of being complete. To begin with, the article is outdated. The NSM has undergone a massive revamp under the newly elected administration of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The changes include an increase in targets under the policy and various details of the policy with regards to restrictions on the use of domestic content for solar projects, the options for project developers to seek buyers for their power, the support for small-scale solar power generation, amongst others. The article also fails to recognize an overall shift in the policy approach the hallmark of which is the fact that the responsibility for the policy rests with a minister collectively responsible for the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy as well as the Ministry for Power and Coal. Further, the article inadequately conveys the goals of the policy, the technologies associated with the policy, the various industry and market players engaged with the use of the policy, and details on the crucial Domestic Content Requirement that is a major limitation on the use of technology within the policy.
In terms of sourcing, the article can do a lot better. It relies mostly on government sources of information, which tend to be delayed with data and use language, which is very heavily biased in favor of the government. There are some mainstream Press sources used that appear to be reliable. However, from my work in the sector, I know there are a number of excellently researched academic studies and market reports that have been overlooked by this article. Overall, the sourcing appears to be lazy.
The article’s neutrality is very questionable. The article comes across as being biased, often representing the positive line towards the policy commonly held by the government. This is no surprise given the fact that references used by the article are primarily government sources. The article would be far more useful with a more accurate and nuanced representation of the goals, objectives, and accomplishments of the policy as provided by numerous other academic and industry research sources.
In terms of sourcing, the article can do a lot better. It relies mostly on government sources of information, which tend to be delayed with data and use language, which is very heavily biased in favor of the government. There are some mainstream Press sources used that appear to be reliable. However, from my work in the sector, I know there are a number of excellently researched academic studies and market reports that have been overlooked by this article. Overall, the sourcing appears to be lazy.
The article’s neutrality is very questionable. The article comes across as being biased, often representing the positive line towards the policy commonly held by the government. This is no surprise given the fact that references used by the article are primarily government sources. The article would be far more useful with a more accurate and nuanced representation of the goals, objectives, and accomplishments of the policy as provided by numerous other academic and industry research sources.
The article is not particularly well written and is, therefore, difficult to read. In each section there are disjointed statements that are jarring to the reader. The sub-sections used in the article are poorly structured and are not completely exhaustive of the numerous aspects of this policy that should be covered in a Wikipedia article.
In terms of style and formatting, the article does appear to broadly conform to the Wikipedia style. Though, in this aspect again, it underutilizes the efficacy of the formatting style by inappropriately naming sections and sub-sections and lacking an comprehensive structure and style.
Lastly, the article carries two illustrations, which is better than nothing. However, the use of these illustrations is questionable in terms of their relevance to the overall article. They do not contribute in any significant way and are strikingly disconnected with the textual content of the article. The article can certainly benefit with more illustrations that connect in a more relevant manner with the text.
Lastly, the article carries two illustrations, which is better than nothing. However, the use of these illustrations is questionable in terms of their relevance to the overall article. They do not contribute in any significant way and are strikingly disconnected with the textual content of the article. The article can certainly benefit with more illustrations that connect in a more relevant manner with the text.
No comments:
Post a Comment