Talk:ExxonMobil/GA1

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

Reviewer: Larataguera (talk · contribs) 15:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

has been responding to some of my feedback about this article at Talk:ExxonMobil, so it seems appropriate to open this review and move further discussion here. Thanks InvadingInvader for your work so far! This is my first attempt at a GA review, so bear with me as I figure it out. Larataguera (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's your initial review. Larataguera (talk) 06:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I am failing this review, because there is insufficient information on Wikipedia about Exxon's global operations to write a complete article. In particular, there is limited information about operations in Papua New Guinea and in Nigeria. A good article should have summaries of these operations, not just a single link to articles that don't contain complete information. These regions are not the only areas that are incomplete, as Exxon has operations all around the globe. Additionally, I am not sure if sufficient material has been summarised from Criticism of ExxonMobil to create a balanced POV (especially in the lead) or that the criticism article is itself complete enough to ensure that relevant issues can be identified for placement in the main article. While InvadingInvader has done a lot of work on this, the remaining gaps are quite large and unlikely to be filled soon.Larataguera (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The article could use some copy-editing. The lead will have to be revisited at the end to ensure proper summary of controversy section.
 * There is a lot of redundancy between the "downstream" and "retail" sections. Could these be merged into one section? Is the loyalty program notable enough to include here?
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Everything looks good here so far. I will be double-checking for copyvio, and verifying sources over the next few days
 * There is some cut-and-paste beginning with hard-to-decarbonize sectors... from this source in the 'Low Carbon Solutions' section that needs to be rephrased
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * The section on controversy needs expansion as we've discussed at Talk:Criticism of ExxonMobil
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Is the table of largest oil companies relevant for this article, since ExxonMobil is only one entry in a rather large table? Some other pictures would be good. Maybe a refinery and something to represent both upstream and retail. All we have is the corporate office.
 * In the section about upstream activities, I wonder if we could have a map of Exxon's global holdings? Or if not, would a table read better than the list of acreage in each country?
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I'm willing to copy-edit once everything is done if that's appropriate. Otherwise, maybe we can get another editor to go over it.
 * article fails. See note at top Larataguera (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to copy-edit once everything is done if that's appropriate. Otherwise, maybe we can get another editor to go over it.
 * article fails. See note at top Larataguera (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)