Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oil shale

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 18:14, 29 April 2008.

Oil shale edit

Self-nominator. Beagel (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

These are materials of the international oil shale conference held on 7—9 November 2006 in Amman. Only top-level oil shale experts were invited to the conference as speakers. So, the fact of delivering speech in this conference makes it reliable. Also, this is probably among the best information, which is possible to get about Chinese oil shale industry as there really lack of other reliable sources (except articles of some Chinese oil shale researchers published in the Oil Shale journal).Beagel (talk) 06:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 14:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although website itself probably can't to be considered as reliable source, the author of this article, Jean Laherrere, is a reputable oil shale specialist and his works are cited in other reliable sources, e.g. report by the European Academies Science Advisory Council.Beagel (talk) 06:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that these results from Google Scholar will prove Jean Laherrere's as reliable source.Beagel (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Google Scholar search This one helps buttress that. Works for me. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
link fixed.Beagel (talk) 06:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
link fixed.Beagel (talk) 06:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
fixed. Hope it is ok now.Beagel (talk) 07:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • same for the next ref (52) also by Tikma... Fixation of chlorine...
It seems to be an temporary error with the EASAC server and probably it will come online again. Alternatively, the link to this report may be replaced with the link to the previous draft of this report, which is available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/dv/ip_a_itre_st_2006_/ip_a_itre_st_2006_10.pdf Any advice what to do? Beagel (talk) 06:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Up to you. Is it a journal article? If it doesn't come up in a few days, I'd replace it, especially if it's an only online source. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a study ordered by the European Commission and presented to the European Parliament. I agree with replacing it with the above-mentioned link after few days if EASAC's server remains dead.Beagel (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is back online.Beagel (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All links checked out fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I struck the resolved issues, and left the others for others to decide. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Three links are dead per link checker. --Efe (talk) 06:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dead links are fixed.Beagel (talk) 07:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Issues resolved, Renata (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some nitpicks:
    • General comment: the article is on the short side (under 15KB of readable text) and sometimes it feels that the text is too short & general. But otherwise it's good.
      • At the one stage of developing this article, it grew too long. It was decided to split article into sub-articles and re-write using summary style. More detailed info is provided by specific articles, marked as main articles under each section. However, try to expand per your comments.Beagel (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I figured that something like that happened, but my point is don't be afraid to elaborate a bit on certain points - you have space. Renata (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Speaking for myself, I feel conflicted about moving stuff - the subarticles often use the same refs, and then Beagel cleans up afterwards. About readable text count - the readability link crashed my PC earlier today, but it looked as tho the Flescher index had reached 40, "better" than the Gettysburg Address. Are there general guidelines for K of prose, or for the other items in the readability link? Novickas (talk) 22:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2.8–3.3 trillion (2.8–3.3 x 1012) U.S. barrels of recoverable oil. - please give some sort of comparison to oil usage today or estimated remaining oil.
    • Geology section just talks about classification - but does not really say how oil shale is different from oil, coal, how it forms, or its composition. It just says "it's all different and all depends" - which is not exactly helpful.
      • Added comparison with coal and tar sands; expanded information about composition.Beagel (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In Reserves section I would like to see a few words about smaller deposits. For example, I see two photos from Estonia and a graph that shows large production there, but no word about it in reserve section.
      • Added information about most-explored resources (reserves).Beagel (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe that there should be no gap between number and % sign (i.e. 70% and not 70 %)
      • I understand, that between numbers and symbols one should use  . However, if necessar, the gap will be removed.Beagel (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The industry was abandoned in most countries after World War II due to high processing costs and the availability of cheaper petroleum. - the graph that you have shows steady climbing production up to 1976
      • The overall output increased because of Estonia, and some extend because of China and Russia. In most of countries oil shale industries were closed, e.g. in Scotland as seen from the chart.Beagel (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As of 2008, only five technologies were in commercial use: Kiviter, Galoter, Fushun, Petrosix, and Alberta Taciuk. please provide a citation.
    • Image:Stuart oil shale processing plant.jpg - it is not licensed under GFDL as it does not allow commercial use. It can only be used as fair use image.
      • Image hide for clarification of license.Beagel (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You should provide short explanations why links are included (why someone should bother looking at those articles) in the ==See also==.
      • Done. Cannot completely vouch for the content of the articles, but at a glance, they look good. Novickas (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't quite understand why you have ==References== section.
      • Resolved myself. Renata (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I followed this example. Although these books (partly) available online, they are at the same time printed books with ISBN code etc. Also, if you have book with several hundreds of pages, you need to cite also page numbers for every citation. However, if the merge of footnote and reference sections is generally accepted, I don't mind. Probably Sandy would like to comment.Beagel (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renata (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, issues resolved. The only small optional request remains: 2.8–3.3 trillion (2.8–3.3 x 1012) U.S. barrels of recoverable oil. - please give some sort of comparison to oil usage today or estimated remaining oil. Renata (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hi Renata, this comparison is made in the Reserves section of the article where it says there is 1.317 trillion barrels of convention oil reserves as of 01-01-2007. Hope that helps. Cheers Dexcel (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support — MOJSKA 666 - Leave a message here 14:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Excellent article. Perhaps boost the third paragraph of the lead (currently only one sentence long) with something from the History or Environment impact sections (currently absent from lead)? --maclean 06:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Expanded this paragraph with environmental issues.Beagel (talk) 10:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Excellent use of summary style. You've managed to make a complex topic very accessible to the average reader. Karanacs (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Oil_shale&oldid=293285833"