Talk:Ethical Oil/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: maclean (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Need add content to lead per WP:LEAD #It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Checking for additional sources
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * (a) Checking for structural info on book content (b) Checking for relevent focus in "Background"
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Checking for accurate representation of opinion-based reviews
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * One image. Fair use is fine but there is a more specific one at Template:Non-free use rationale book cover.
 * ✅ CharlieEchoTango 00:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * maclean (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * maclean (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Notes
 * Split the "Context and content" section into a Background (or Context) section and a Content section. As it is written here, it is confusing as to what the book covers and what is just background information.
 * In that Background (or Context) section, explain who Ezra Levant is, like is he a academic or political pundit. What personal/professional background makes him qualified to write about this topic? Provide any origins of the book or the book's ideas here.
 * I'm not too sure where to expand on Levant in a way that is relevant to the book. He is mostly a pundit and it wouldn't feel right to label him a journalist, much less an academic. And although he's pretty well informed and did his research, he doesn't have particular credentials to write about this topic aside from championing conservative causes (especially related to free speech and multiculturalism issues), but they don't necessarily have anything to do with this book (which is largely written from a liberal point of view). As for Levant's inspiration for writing the book, I'll see if I can find a Q&A somewhere that would provide an answer (I think I saw one while doing the research for the article), so doing
 * Wasn't a Q&A afterall, but ✅. I also added he is a host on SNN. Do you feel this is enough to address the specific concern, or should I expand more on who Ezra Levant is, even though it may not be totally relevant?
 * The article should mention publicity events and the subsequent the protesters.
 * Are you referring to the event in Saskatoon? I wasn't able to find a reliable source with enough context to cite it though. I'll keep checking. See Template talk:Did you know/Ethical Oil: The Case for Canada's Oil Sands.
 * "Author confronts protesters at pro-oilsands book event". Warren, Jeremy. Star - Phoenix [Saskatoon, Sask] 18 Sep 2010: .10. "Saskatoon police appeared at McNally Robinson just after 1 p.m., but by then most of the protesters who confronted Levant and his supporters had left, leaving Levant to finish signing copies of his book." - I have emailed you an entire copy of the article. maclean (talk) 19:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ — CharlieEchoTango  — 20:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to expand on the book's content, like how its structured? The article mentions "four criteria" - is the book divided into 4 sections, each addressing one criteria? or is it divided up some other way?
 * Divided in 12 chapters not related to the four criteria Levant mentions,
 * The lead section should be expanded per WP:LEAD. One paragraph is fine, but it should also touch upon items like the four criteria, that it is comparing oil production (methods?) in Canada versus other countries, its impact on government communications, etc.
 * Not so much methods of production as it is the context of production (thus the concept of ethical oil vs conflict oil, freedom oil vs repression oil, etc)
 * ✅ — CharlieEchoTango  — 20:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ — CharlieEchoTango  — 20:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing! I'll try to address the points raised above over the next few days. CharlieEchoTango 00:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In addition to the above noted newspaper article, I have emailed you a copy reviews from MacLean's magazine and the Winnipeg Free Press. maclean (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Got them, thanks! Found URLs too,, . I'll get to it later today or tomorrow. Best, — Charlie Echo Tango  — 20:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Maclean, I'm sorry I haven't have much time to work on this today. Just a heads up : I'm not going to be available until 30 August, but I shall address the points you raised as soon as I'm back home. Sorry for the inconvenience, and again, thanks for reviewing. Cheers, — Charlie Echo Tango  — 04:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know. I will place the review on hold. maclean (talk) 15:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "largest supplier of oil to the United States.[4]" - I did not see this in the cited reference.
 * ✅ — CharlieEchoTango  — 20:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In the "Background" section, I removed the references citing the Alberta provincial government and the embassy. Considering that the next sentence in the paragraph is that the prov+fed governments are promoting oil sands development I thought it best to go with more neutral sources. I added references to peer reviewed papers, which are available online (except for the Nature article which I emailed to you for verification). maclean (talk) 05:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The lead is ✅, the Saskatoon event is ✅, now working on the 'content' section, then in the 'reviews' section I'll add the other reviews you emailed me and a few others. Best, — CharlieEchoTango  — 20:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The article now meets all the GA criteria. You can continue to add sources which provide different points-of-view or support views already mentioned in the article; and continue editing the Content section as you see relevant. Another thing you may consider is adding "Genre" (comments relating to it as a "non-fiction" workor its style) to the "Review" section. As an example, The World Without Us has a Genre section. maclean (talk) 19:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wasn't quite done, but I'll trust your judgment to pass it as GA now. Sorry again for the delays as I've been pretty busy lately. I will later expand on the content, and add the reviews you emailed me. I'll also see to add a genre section. I'll ping you when I'm done, if you want, so you can check up on it. Cheers and thanks for the review, the additional research, and the patience. :) — CharlieEchoTango  — 22:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)