Talk:Oil shale in Estonia/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Spinningspark (talk · contribs) 00:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

This article is very close to being GA standard. There is potentially a serious issue with some of the images which needs resolving before it can be passed. Here are my comments;

Lead

It is very confusing that "graptolitic argillite" is linked to alum shale through a pipe. The target article does not say that graptolitic argilite is a synonym of alum shale. It is especially confusing that the article argillite is available but has not been linked. Looking at it simplisticly, I would have expected graptolitic argillite to be an argillite containing graptolites. But again, the target article does not mention graptolites, rather, it says the shale contains products of algae. This article cannot be criticised for the shortcomings of other articles of course. But if those shortcomings can't, or won't, be fixed in the target article, then they need to be clarified in this article.

• I think the best solution is to create a dedicated article for graptolitic argillite. I think I could do that within the next few days. Novickas (talk) 15:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

There are some sources referring to graptolitic argilite as alum shale. Some others makes distinction between two of them but pointing out their correlation and closeness. Both belongs to the group of Baltoscandic black shales (there is no article about on the black shale in Wikipedia yet) and Estonian graptolitic argillite is considered to be Swedish alum shale's younger facial eastward continuation. That's true that the alum shale article is lacking a lot of important information, including almost all information about Scandinavian alum shale which seems to be the main alum shale. I agree that the best way would be creating a separate article. As the search for 'graptolitic argilite' explicitly brings up graptolitic argillite in Estonia, I think that we could also use information in this article for the new article (properly attributed, of course). I already started to prepare a draft, so I will post it in coming days and would like to ask Novickas to amend it. Beagel (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

It is further confusing that claystone is given in brackets as if it were a synonym. I suspect what is intended here is that it is a type of claystone. If so, please say so explicitly.

• I'd recommend just taking out claystone, but will wait for B.'s thoughts. It might could go in the graptolitic argillite article.Novickas (talk) 15:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Lets take it out here and explain it in the graptolitic argillite article. Beagel (talk) 18:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. "(Claystone)" removed per above. Beagel (talk) 07:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a lot of WP:OVERLINK in the lead. In my opinion fuel, Russia, electricity, cement and waste are all unnecessary. The rest of the article should probably also be checked for overlinking. It might be worth specifically highlighting that oil shale and shale oil are not synonymous. It is easy to get very confused if the reader does not understand this. Perhaps instead of "Shale oil production began..." we have "Production of shale oil from oil shale began..."

 Done

I am finding this 85% figure a little dubious in light of the statement that Russian nuclear power started to play a large role from 1980. I suspect what is really meant is that 85% of Estonian production is from shale, not 85% of electricity consumption which is probably a lot smaller. Please clarify this as necessary (and in the body of the article as well.)

Could you please clarify where its says that 85% of consumed electricity? In the lead it says "about 85% of Estonia's electricity is generated by oil shale" which is the same as "produced from oil shale". What concerns your suspicion that electricity production is smaller that consumption, this is incorrect; Estonia is a net exporter of electricity. But this is not relevant here. Beagel (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

It just seemed strange that the figure remained so high after oil shale production was said to be declining. However, if you are confirming that the figure is verified in the sources then that is good enough for me. SpinningSpark 00:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually it has decreased (it used to be over 95%) and continues to decrease due to climate policy and increase of renewable energy. However, the figure 85% remained same in 2013 according to the Estonian Statistical Office (http://www.stat.ee/energy). Beagel (talk) 10:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Heating is pipe linked to district heating. Is there some reason the full phrase cannot be made visible? If that is what is meant it would be clearer. If that is not what is meant it is probably an inappropriate link.

 Done

images

File:Open-pit oil shale mine in Estonia (1933).png and about six others from the Museums Public Portal are claimed to be licenced under Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication. However, the site copyright page appears to exclude commercial use which makes them ineligble for use on Wikipedia. Please point to where these images are licenced to a Wikipedia compatible licence or else they will need to be removed.

These copyrights seems to be a little bit confusing. The site you linked really says that digital museum objects can't be used for making souvenirs (so the commercial use is limited only to souvenirs). At the same time the same site clearly states that all digital museum objects are made available under The Creative Commons Universal Public Domain Dedication (CC0 1.0). Even more, the same site says that all digital images ay be used according to open data principles (link to www.opendata.ee). There are eight principles including: License-free. Data is not subject to any copyright, patent, trademark or trade secret regulation. Reasonable privacy, security and privilege restrictions may be allowed. Taking account all these different aspects and the fact that the Creative Commons Universal Public Domain Dedication (CC0 1.0) applies to all public sector sites in Estonia, and also fact that this site clearly states that The Creative Commons Universal Public Domain Dedication (CC0 1.0) is applied, it seems to be correct license, which makes these images Wikipedia compatible. Beagel (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, if it needs taking any further that's a matter to take up at Commons. SpinningSpark 20:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Graptolitic argillite

"the fossils in the rock are not graptolites from the genus Dictyonema" This needs rewording as it implies that the Dictyonema are graptolites which I don't think was the intention. Also linking genus is overlinking, especially as it is contiguous with another link (not recommended per MOS:LINK)

• • Reworded as " the fossils in the rock are not dictyonemids but members of the genus Rhabdinopora" Novickas (talk) 15:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Actually Dictyonema IS a graptolite genus, so I'm sure it was the original intention. Wilson44691 (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
      • The source ([1], page 3) reads: "Second, according to the systematic revision in 1980s, the fossils in the rock are not graptolites from the genus Dictyonema but representatives of the genus Rhabdinopora. However, the terms Dictyonema shale or Dictyonema argillite are too strongly rooted in Baltoscandia to be replaced." I know Graptolites are a class (biology) that contains both genuses - maybe needs a little more rewording - suggestions? Novickas (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
        • Latest wording: "Although the name dictyonema argillite is widely used instead of graptolitic argillite, this name is now considered a misnomer as the graptolite fossils in the rock, earlier considered dictyonemids, were reclassified during the 1980s as members of the genus Rhabdinopora." What say? Novickas (talk) 19:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
          • The thing that misled me is that our article Dictyonema is about a different genus (of fungi). That should never have been linked (at least not in the context of graptolites). One thing that could improve things would be a hatnote pointing to graptolites on the Dictyonema article. Although there is a hatnote pointing to a disambiguation page it did not occur to me that that there would be two genera with the same name (that's not supposed to happen is it). The dab page is superfluous as it only has two entries. I'll amend the hatnote now. I agree with Novickas that this disambiguation could usefully be explained in this article, perhaps as a parenthetical aside. SpinningSpark 19:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Kukersite

"It lays at depths" > "It lies at depths"

 Done

"reserves forms active resource, which is defined" >"reserves form active resource, which is defined". Should there be an article in front of "active resource"?

• Reworded as "The term "active resources" is used to describe the combination of economically proven and probable reserves. It consists of mineable deposits..." Novickas (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Beginning of oil-shale industry

retort is not wikilinked on first use, please move the link.

 Done

It's not clear what "(Pintsch generator)" is supposed to mean. Is this the name of the retort Pintsch constructed or something else?

This is the same thing. Both names are in parallel use. Beagel (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The point was that that needs to be made clear with "also called", or "known as" or some such phrase. Or rephrase to put it in the running text such as "This work used a Pintsch generator, a retort constructed...". SpinningSpark 20:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Used "known as". Beagel (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Missing article, expecting "...known as a Pintsch generator". SpinningSpark 09:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Added the a. Novickas (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Development during Estonia's independence

"predecessor of nowadays Viru Keemia Grupp ..." This is a klunky un-English phrase. The word nowadays is not really needed at all. However, the whole sentence could be improved by unpacking the nested brackets and giving the organisation history in a more linear way over two or three sentences. That will make it easier to say more directly that Viru Keemia Grupp is the current organisation.

• Reworded as "On 24 November 1918, Riigi Põlevkivitööstus (English: Estonian State Oil Shale Industry) was established as a department of the Ministry for Trade and Industry. The enterprise, later named Esimene Eesti Põlevkivitööstus (English: First Estonian Oil Shale Industry), was the predecessor of Viru Keemia Grupp. Novickas (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

"since 1930 underground mine". Article needed "since 1930 an underground mine", or better "an underground mine from 1930 onwards".

"As of 1925, all locomotives in Estonia were powered by oil shale." Better would be "From 1925..." To my mind as of has the implication that that is still the case.

"predecessor of nowadays Kiviõli Keemiatööstus". Needs rewording.

• • Took out both of the nowadays's; will think about the styling of the Viru sentence. Reworded to "located underground since 1930"; changed as of 1925 to by 1925. Novickas (talk) 15:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

German occupation

"Shale oil extraction plants in Estonia were destroyed and mines were ignited or inundated". By the retreating Germans?

 Done. That's correct. Clarification added per your suggestion. Beagel (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Restoration of the industry after World War II

Oil shale coke redirects to char. The target article mentions neither oil shale nor coke, nor the coking process. Readers might wonder why they have been directed there.

Depending the utilized technology, the solid waste of the shale oil extraction could be oil shale coke, semi-coke or processed shale–all of them described by the term 'spent shale'. Is it exactly oil shale coke, semi-coke or processed shale depends the amount of remaining organic matter and moisture in the spent shale. Notwithstanding the fact that it could be used for production of cement or for some other purposes, it is a waste. Therefore it differs from coal coke and petroleum coke, and the process is not coking as it known in the petroleum industry. Some American and British sources uses instead on oil shale coke and semi-coke the term char. The article on char defines char as the solid material that remains after light gases (e.g. coal gas) and tar have been driven out or released from a carbonaceous material during the initial stage of combustion, which is known as carbonization, charring, devolatilization or pyrolysis. Oil shale is a carbonaceous material and spent shale is produced as a result of pyrolysis (all shale oil extraction processes in Estonia are pyrolysis processes), so it seemed most logical target to be linked. Beagel (talk) 19:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't doubt you are right but that is not the point. It is still the case that readers may not understand why they are being pointed to that article. If char really is synonymous with oil shale coke can I suggest linking it like "oil shale coke (char)." This is the principle of least astonishment, which can alternatively be met by mentioning oil shale coke on the target page. SpinningSpark 01:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

To avoid confusion "spent shale, a solid residue of oil shale" was used instead of. Beagel (talk) 19:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Peak of production

"At the same time mines No.2, No.4, Kukruse, and Käva were closed." Readers will be left wondering why mines are being closed at the peak of demand. This sentence is a close paraphrase of the source by the way, and ideally should be rephrased.

• I assume they were closed because they weren't viable anymore for whatever reasons. But the source doesn't go into that. Maybe we could just take the sentence out? Novickas (talk) 15:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

These mines were quite small and the main reason for closing was exhausting of recoverable reserves at their area. Beagel (talk) 19:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Why not put that information in the article. SpinningSpark 01:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I've not found anything on why the mines were closed - of course exhaustion is the most common reason. It's really hard to paraphrase a very short sentence from a single source - my only suggestion would be replacing it with "Four mines were closed." Novickas (talk) 18:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I added an additional source and reworded the sentence: "Correspondingly, exhausted smaller mines No.2, No.4, Kukruse, and Käva were closed between 1967 and 1975." That source does not say explicitly in its text that they were smaller and exhausted but the data provided in the respective table confirm this. Beagel (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

"Oil Shale". Journal names are italicised.

 Done

Economic impact

"National Development Plan for the Utilisation of Oil Shale 2008–2015" should be italicised if this is a standalone publication.

 Done

Mining

"Both the overburden and the bed are first broken up by blasting". Bed is a very general term here and the link to it does not really help. I'm thinking that when contrasted with overburden, the material above the deposit, bed could be taken to mean the material below the deposit.

No, bed is a part of the deposit. Not all layers of the deposits are mineable. In this context bed is a precise and correct term. However, I changed it for more general deposit. Beagel (talk) 07:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Electricity and heat generation

"85% of Estonia's electricity was generated from oil shale". See comment on this in the lead. "Narva Power Stations". Why not link the article where it appears in the text instead of a see also at the top of the section.

The term "Narva Power Stations" appears first time in the 'Peak of production' subsection and it is linked there. This term is not linked here to avoid overlinkage. At the same time it seems to be appropriate to use {{See also}} template here. Beagel (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

district heating of Narva". Wikilink district heating

The term 'district heating' is linked in the lead now and repeating this link here is not needed. Beagel (talk) 10:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

It is common practice (and allowed by WP:REPEATLINK) to repeat in the body of the article links that appear in the lead. Not a GA issue if you don't think it useful, but that's the common practice. SpinningSpark 11:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done

Shale oil extraction

"Production accounted 536,903 tonnes". That is odd wording, "for" is normally expected after "accounting", but does this not just mean "production was..."

 Done Used "production was...". Beagel (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

"Two processes—Kiviter process and Galoter process". Aren't definite articles required here.

 Done

Cement production

Semi-coke. Again there is a somewhat confusing redirect to char

Please see comment above. Beagel (talk) 19:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

To avoid confusion "spent shale, a solid residue of oil shale" was used instead of. Beagel (talk) 19:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The term semi-coke is still used at several places in the article. I suggest giving a definition or explanation of it rather than trying to find an alternative term (which then needs defining itself). Why not write "semi-coke, a solid residue of oil shale" on first use and then restore the previous mentions currently turned into spent shale. In any event, I don't think two terms should be used in the article for the same thing, at least not without saying they are synonymous. SpinningSpark 10:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Environmental impact

Wikilink fly-ash

 Done

"project was implemented for environmentally safe closing". Need article "...the environmentally safe closing"

 Done

References

The external links tool shows several dead and broken links

 Done. For some reasons, the external links tool shows all news.err.ee links as dead links. However, they are not dead and opening correctly. Other broken external links are fixed. Beagel (talk) 20:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Ref #112 is showing as incorrect type. This is because the link is attempting to download a pdf. The recommended way of dealing with this is to link to a page from which the pdf can be downloaded (often a page with the abstract or a choice of formats). The user can then decide for themselves what they want to download - especially useful for users with a slow connection. I'm not sure what pages are available for linking in this case, but presumably you do.

 Done

By the way, I would strongly recommend putting news sources (and other online only sources) on to Webcite. These frequently go dead and this gives some protection to the article's verifiability. SpinningSpark 11:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure what you exactly recommend. Could you please give a more precise example? Beagel (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

You go to the WebCite archiving form and paste in the url of the page you want to archive. Type in your e-mail address and click submit. The site should reply with a new url with the archived page. That's it, job done. Many of the citation templates have a field for adding the archive copy (see Template:Cite web under the archiveurl parameter example) or you can manually add it to the end of the ref with something like "archived 9 November 2014" (using this page as an example). However, that's the cherry on the cake to make it easier for future editors to find the archive. The basics of archiving the page on WebCite is simple and straightforward. SpinningSpark 20:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Webarchive, got the point. Thank you very much for explanation. Beagel (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The link to ref#23 does not appear to be the actual journal article. Perhaps a preprint or a translation? The cite link should go to the actual journal. A link to a preprint or translation can also be given, but its status should be clearly stated.

Oil Shale 15 (2S) was the journal's special edition which was published in cooperation with Tallinn University of Technology. All articles in this special edition are linked from the journal's official site (http://www.kirj.ee/public/oilshale/vol_15-2.html) to the website of Tallinn University of Technology. Due to the website changes, these links are now broken and this article is moved from its original site (http://www.ttu.ee/maeinst/os/2_katlok.html) to its current site (http://deepthought.ttu.ee/maeinst/os/2_katlok.html). However, the original link is accessable through the web-archive http://web.archive.org/web/19991004165253/http://www.ttu.ee/maeinst/os/2_katlok.html which is identical to the article in the current location. Therefore, as it is actually linked from the journal's site as article published in the journal, it clarifies concerns about authenticity of this article. Of course, this is not the usual practice but there are simlar issues with earlier issues of this journal. Beagel (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

SpinningSpark 20:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• I still have an outstanding comment on the term semi-coke, but that is not an issue preventing promotion to GA and consequently, I have now listed it. Well done all those who took part in improving this article. SpinningSpark 11:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks, User:Spinningspark, for the extremely thorough and helpful review, and for help with the Dictyonema issue, and thank you too, User:Wilson44691. Novickas (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.