The study was released on Thursday. Just noting where we are relative to freshness.
This is an interesting study.
Covering scientific studies is tricky, as results are extremely easy to misrepresent and misinterpret, and both often go on unintentionally in the media and intentionally in politics.
The second sentence, about contradicting the assumption, may be best simply deleted; it begs the question of who is supposedly assuming this, and the point seems difficult to make without introducing opinion/analysis. If some variant on it can be made to work, in its final form it may turn out to belong somewhere other than the lede.
There's information here I didn't successfully find support for in the cited sources and, on a quick check of the on-line report itself, some of it appears likely flawed.
The researchers do not appear to have assumed 150,000 km, but to have considered several different figures of which 150,000 km was one.
Was electricity usage only considered in the manufacture and use phases? The three phases apparently considered by the study were production, use, and dismantling.
Looking at the report itself, it seems to have been using European norms for most things; I didn't successfully verify the first sentence of the third paragraph, about different countries and areas of the world. Likewise I didn't see, and doubt, the researchers said anything about how much of the US uses eco-unfriendly electricity generation.
[Note: one of the cited sources (not the report itself) does say 'many' US areas have this problem, a vaguer proposition than 'most' US areas.]
Did the researchers actually encourage people to do that stuff in the last paragraph? My impression was that they said those things would improve eco-friendliness of EVs, which is not quite the same thing.
I bumbled around some with the headline, though I think I ended up with something okay at last.
If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.
The study was released on Thursday. Just noting where we are relative to freshness.
This is an interesting study.
Covering scientific studies is tricky, as results are extremely easy to misrepresent and misinterpret, and both often go on unintentionally in the media and intentionally in politics.
The second sentence, about contradicting the assumption, may be best simply deleted; it begs the question of who is supposedly assuming this, and the point seems difficult to make without introducing opinion/analysis. If some variant on it can be made to work, in its final form it may turn out to belong somewhere other than the lede.
There's information here I didn't successfully find support for in the cited sources and, on a quick check of the on-line report itself, some of it appears likely flawed.
The researchers do not appear to have assumed 150,000 km, but to have considered several different figures of which 150,000 km was one.
Was electricity usage only considered in the manufacture and use phases? The three phases apparently considered by the study were production, use, and dismantling.
Looking at the report itself, it seems to have been using European norms for most things; I didn't successfully verify the first sentence of the third paragraph, about different countries and areas of the world. Likewise I didn't see, and doubt, the researchers said anything about how much of the US uses eco-unfriendly electricity generation.
[Note: one of the cited sources (not the report itself) does say 'many' US areas have this problem, a vaguer proposition than 'most' US areas.]
Did the researchers actually encourage people to do that stuff in the last paragraph? My impression was that they said those things would improve eco-friendliness of EVs, which is not quite the same thing.
I bumbled around some with the headline, though I think I ended up with something okay at last.
If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.
The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.
The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.
