Talk:Nevada–Texas–Utah retort

General audience encyclopedia
I added chemical decomposition just so anyone not already familiar with the industry could start at a ground floor level of understanding. This article is not written to be understood by anyone who does not already understand what this is, and that isn't the purpose of wikipedia. I've seen NTU explained in a straight-forward manner without any technical language, the process itself. That's what this article should strive for: explaining this to its target audience. That's my opinion. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 08:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This isn't quantum physics, and this isn't oilAndGasWiki, it's just English wikipedia; this article needs toned down from its excess of jargon to a directly written article that explains what this technology is.

From : "Use jargon and acronyms judiciously. In addition to explaining jargon and expanding acronyms at first use, you might consider using them sparingly thereafter, or not at all."

In particular, if a reader accesses only the lead section of the article, the should come away with sthe basic concept of what the article is about, but this article opens with a definition from an insider's guide. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 08:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What in the lead is not understandable for the general audience? The only possible term qualified as 'technical jargon' in the first sentence is 'shale oil extraction', which is linked to the article with the same name and says in its first sentence, what it is. Concerning your edit, it was correct, but at the same time it may be confusing for people who are already not familiar with the basics. I think that current solution explaining the means of retorting and pyrolysis in the text is better solution. Beagel (talk) 06:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

retorting, or chemical decomposition,


 * "It was a predecessor of the Gas Combustion Retort and the Paraho processes.[1]"


 * "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should be established in the first sentence of the lead. While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not 'tease' the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article."


 * The concept can be explained overall to the general reader in a 3-5 sentence paragraph, tagging the historical development at the end of the lead. What do you mean by general audience?  At the bottom end I mean a smart high school student with no general background, but not deficient in science or math.


 * The first sentence is fine now; note I posted before you expanded it. The lead needs more. That's my opinion, and, now I'll leave you your articles and area of wikipedia.


 * --69.226.103.13 (talk) 09:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I expanded the lead. Please feel free for a further expansion if necessary. Beagel (talk) 10:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed just a few words. Thank you for expanding it.  I think this will help the reader.  --69.226.103.13 (talk) 22:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nevada–Texas–Utah retort. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091002045506/http://web.senate@aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/fuelenergy_ctte/submissions/sub0039.pdf to http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/Committee/fuelenergy_ctte/submissions/sub0039.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)