Comment I think can be useful to complete the set a map of the plant or an aerial view, so we can view all the units and their relative position/dimension. Some units seem repeated on the image (for example I think the cooling tower it's the same on all the photos). I propose to eliminate all the photo except Image:KKP_Gleis.jpg, then add a photo for the reactor, such as this and an aerial view, such as this. --Aushulz (talk) 00:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for starting the review.
Of course the same thing is seen in different views, that's the purpose of a VIS.
Additionally, KKP's units are very different from each other, a fact that makes the plant somewhat special, and the views not repeating.
Map is a good idea. Unfortunately, I don't have the ability to draw one quickly.
Arial image would also be very nice. Anyone would add value, but even more a steeper view like Karlsruhe:Bild:Philippsburg2.jpg. Unfortunately, we don't have anyone. Practically, everyone can generate an orthophoto map, following the geocoding links...
Less are we likely to get images of the uncapped reactors (two!). However, they won't look different from other BWRs rsp. PWRs, so I don't see real need for them.
I think your discussion is very constructive, and I will congratulate you both for that. Maybe the champions of FPC could read your kind and positive exchange . I appreciate too that two native german speakers, if I'm not wrong, speak here in English for general understanding. Very nice ! Well, for me now, the set is better. IMO, images are not repetitive, and seems to show me a complete view of this Kernkraftwerke. And all this declaration is to say that I Support this set as VIS.--Jebulon (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Thanks for having uploaded this new aerial view of the site. Per Aushulz, I think that there is some redundancy in the set, and some lack too. Within this scope, one might expect one or two internal views in the set, ideally showing the two reactors (each one being of a specific type). I do hope that those of Philippsburg Nuclear Power Plant are not so common and representative of any nuclear reactor, as I read that they have suffered from several serious disorders in the past. I also read that this plant will be shut down in some years ("Final disconnection for both units is scheduled for 2011 for unit 1 and 2017 for unit 2".). In my opinion, the new overall view would be perfectly suitable and sufficient for a single VI. Note: I have noticed the embedded images in the global view: great job). Side comment: Per Jebulon, I praise the quality and tone of the discussion :-) --Myrabella (talk) 08:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the aerial image had been evailable before, I would surely have it nominated as single VI. Now that the set is nominated and voted on, I suggest to wait for the result... I don't see redundancy in it.
I've taken the images and proposed the set thinking of the plant as a landmark. The exterior view and embedding in the vicinity is the characteristic of an individual plant. Internally the plants aren't very individual. The reactor types are different from each other, but the two most common types all over the world.
Most publications about nuclear energy are POV and advocacy, thus one can find very varying veluations of the same objects and events. But I wonder where you found anything about notable technical disorders in Philippsburg? There have only been some administrative disorders. Disconnecting all nuclear power plants is a political decision. --Ikar.us (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can read de:Kernkraftwerk Philippsburg#Betriebsstörungen und Störfälle, the incidents occured in past years were not only administrative. The fr:WP article is more POV (and unsourced): "Pendant ces dernières années, les deux réacteurs ont subi des critiques féroces, car ils furent l'objet de nombreuses pannes et incidents." But I admit that the expression "serious disorders" has to be reformulated in "reportable incidents." However, allow me to draw your attention to the fact that the WP articles deal mostly with the two internal reactors. Nevertheless, I finally won't suggest a "XXX (exterior)" subscope as for a cathedral; I simply find that the aerial view, with the embedded images in notes, is an accurate and ample enough illustration for the present scope—and I agree, let's the review go on. (By the way and just FYI, there has been a previous VIC showing a nuclear reactor). --Myrabella (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
