== Errors by Willis et al. and by User:Boundarylayer == 

 Boundarylayer, first lets review some discussion etiquette. You should NOT be using SHOUT-OUT BOLD TEXT TO EMPHASIZE YOUR PROMOTIONAL VIEWPOINTS, UNLESS YOU WANT PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE WITH YOU TO DO THE SAME, under the 'what's good for the goose is good for the gander' dictum.   If you don't retract your shout-out bold text, we can all turn this discussion page into a zoo spectacle of crazy fonts.  Would you like to further this discussion in !Patchwork font, or can we resume improving the article in a normal type style? 

 Several of your edits have been skewed with POVism, bias and factual errors.  For example in one of your earlier discussions above you pushed the US annual mortality of 440,000 birds as provided by the USFWS, without mentioning, as stated in this very article, that the "... USFWS later [pointed] out that it was only an 'estimate' by one of many scientists and was not officially supported by the agency". Then about a week ago you inserted a mortality rate for wind energy of 2.94 deaths per GWh into the table of US bird mortality, using a bogus combined total figure for both bird AND bat mortality taken from Willis. 

 You further shouted out several errors culled from Willis et al., referring to the Willis's article as being "peer-reviewed", although it is clearly designated as a "Forum" article immediately above its title, with an acceptance date only seven days after it was received.  A forum article that sorted, adjusted and compiled data from hundreds of studies being peer-reviewed in seven days?  Really??  You then ignored the "Megawatts are not megawatt-hours...." rebuttal article by Sovacool, also bearing a Forum designation, which immediately followed the Willis paper as pointed out by KDP earlier, above this new section. 

 What Willis et al. did, or didn't do is equally relevant. They accurately pointed out that chiropterans are not birds and that Sovacool should not have implied his meta-study results for birds should also apply to bats. They further pointed to instances of Sovacool using 'gray' studies and the lack of detailed data related to bats. Then they proceed to essential make the same or similar errors in consistency in methodology and accuracy that Sovacool was accused of, such as completely confusing nameplate megawatt capacity with megawatt-hour electricity production actually created. Willis et al. thus undermined their own assumptions of deaths per MWh.  Sovacool pointed to instances in his rebuttal of Willis et al. where the Willis group: 
 #  failed to adjust death rates downwards, where required, in addition to upwards, thus conflating total mortality due to wind energy; 
 #  used 'gray' studies, even after criticizing Sovacool for doing just that; 
 #  criticized Sovacool for the supposed underestimating of scavenging losses and the overestimating of searcher efficiency, then offering significantly higher death rates based on different data sets that Sovacool did not use, all the while ignoring and failing to apply the same adjustments to nuclear and fossil-fuel electricity studies, making those power sources appear more benign in comparison to wind energy; 
 # criticized Sovacool for not including habitat loss due to wind farms, ignoring the far smaller footprint created by wind farms compared to the significant habitat loss created by uranium and coal mines; 
 # criticized Sovacool for lack of detailed mortality rates across species and time periods, while they employed studies using the same summary methodology used by Sovacool; 
 # pointed to 'disproportionate [negative] influence' of some wind farms, without applying the same standard to nuclear waste lagoons and artificial coal flyash 'ponds' (such as the one that collapsed in Europe two years ago devastating a wide area). 

 Although you have done your best to denigrate Sovacool's meta-study, it did what his 2010 Forum rebuttal article claimed:  It provided "....a rough sense for what wind, coal, and nuclear sources may be doing to birds, bats, and other animals", something that the non-renewable energy industries would much rather the public remain ignorant on. In the same rebuttal article, Sovacool also pointed to the Sundqvist and Soderhom papers which showed the environmental and social costs of nuclear energy as 29 times greater than those of wind energy.   That appears nowhere in your edits to this article or on this article improvement page.