Talk:Peak oil/GA1

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

GA Sweeps: On hold
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to determine if the article should remain a Good article. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a GA. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that needs to be addressed.


 * 1) In the lead "Peal oil" does not need to be bolded twice.
 * 2) The lead needs to be reduced to four paragraphs. See WP:LEAD for guidelines.
 * 3) There are some issues with the spacing of the inline citations throughout the article. Make sure all are consistent with no spaces between the punctuation and citation.
 * 4) Address the three citation needed tags. One has been there since August 2008.
 * 5) This isn't required for GA, but I tagged multiple images to be moved to Wikimedia Commons. If you have an account there, consider moving them so other language Wikipedias can use the images.
 * 6) The article has multiple dead links/redirects that should be fixed. The Internet Archive can help. In addition, there are a few dabs that should be fixed.
 * 7) There are numerous sources listed in the further reading section. Can some of these be trimmed? Perhaps some can be used for sourcing the citation issues.
 * 8) The lists in the "Conclusions from the Hirsch Report and three scenarios" section should be converted to prose.
 * 9) "Pessimistic predictions of future oil production operate on the thesis that either the peak has already occurred,[5][6][7] we are on the cusp of the peak..." It's best not to use "we", perhaps consider "oil production" instead or reword it to something else. In addition, this very long sentence should be split up into two.
 * 10) The article jumps back-and-forth in using "US" or "U.S." Choose one so the article is uniform. In addition, the serial comma is not uniformly used throughout the article. Choose one method and stick with it.
 * 11) "China has seen oil consumption grow by 8% yearly since 2002, doubling from 1996-2006,[16] In 2008, auto sales in China were expected to grow by as much as 15-20%, resulting in part from economic growth rates of over 10% for 5 years in a row." It looks like there should be a period instead of a comma after 1996-2006.
 * 12) "The EIA estimated that the United States'..." This is the first mention of EIA, so provide the full title and wikilink.
 * 13) "The peak of world oilfield discoveries occurred in 1965..." Italic font is not needed here.
 * 14) "...but to some, this future technology is already considered in Proven and Probable reserve numbers." I don't believe that Proven/Probable need to be capitalized. Same goes for Probable/Possible Reserves a few sentences before.
 * 15) The subsection "Peak reserves" is made up of one sentence. Either expand on the content there or incorporate it into another section.
 * 16) The list in the "Concerns over stated reserves" section could be converted to prose.
 * 17) "A 2003 article in Discover magazine claimed..." Discover should be italicized. Due the same for the journal "A 2008 Journal of Energy Security analysis of the energy..."
 * 18) "Because world population grew faster than oil production, production per capita peaked in 1979 (preceded by a plateau during the period of 1973-1979)." Single sentences shouldn't stand alone. Either expand on the content or incorporate it into another paragraph. Fix any other occurrences in the article.
 * 19) "(Anglo-Iranian, Socony-Vacuum, Royal Dutch Shell, Gulf, Esso, Texaco, and Socal.)" Remove the period.
 * 20) "None of these predictions dispute the peaking of oil production, but disagree only on when it will occur." Remove the italics.
 * 21) "In 2007, The Wall Street Journal reported that..." Needs italics.
 * 22) "The Hirsch Report" Report should be lower-cased to be uniform.
 * 23) Each nation should have a source in the list in the "Peak oil for individual nations" section.
 * 24) "...the price of oil peaked on 30 June 2008 at..." The date format thus far had been Month Date Year, make sure it is uniform throughout.
 * 25) "Besides supply and demand pressures..." Period is needed for the end of this sentence.
 * 26) "It only became attractive to production companies when oil prices exceeded about $25/bbl, high enough to cover the costs of production and upgrading to synthetic crude." Needs an inline citation.
 * I removed this statement, when a source is found, please readd it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This appears to be from an MBA thesis which is available online. I haven't added it, since I'm unsure about it as an RS, but it is here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/14873482/Demand-and-Supply-Crude-Oil --FormerIP (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This article covers the topic well. Due to the length of the article, I will wait to review the prose for any other issues until the above points have been addressed. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. If no progress is made, the article may be delisted, which can then later be renominated at WP:GAN. I'll contact all of the main contributors and related WikiProjects so the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) "Dr. Christoph Rühl, Chief economist of BP, repeatedly uttered strong doubts about the peak oil hypothesis" Add a colon.
 * 2) "In Fiction" -> "In fiction"
 * 3) "James Howard Kunstler, author of The Long Emergency[174] and The Geography of Nowhere[175], fictionalized his predictions of post-oil civilization into a novel entitled World Made by Hand" Fix the spacing of the inline citation and add a period.
 * 4) "(Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior explains)" Italics needed for film title.

Replies
Not sure if this is the place to put this, so if not please move to the proper location. I fixed several of these issues. The dead links are all checked, though for some reason two Times Online articles keep coming up as dead even though the addresses work when navigated to from google.

Can you give some examples of what you mean by "some issues with the spacing of the inline citations throughout the article"? I saw one thing like this that I fixed, but I want to be sure we're looking at the same issue.

As for the long further reading section, I believe this is meant to show the extensiveness of coverage afforded this topic... there have been many POV editors that would love to pass this topic off as a fringe theory, so the huge volume of work helps to show that this is not so. A lot about this article has come about because of attempts to head off POV editors; it seems that anticipating objections with huge amounts of detail has been the best way so far to deal with what, in the past, have been rather pointed attacks. (strange that such a technical subject elicits such emotional responses) NJGW (talk) 05:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I crossed off the resolved issues so far. I don't know why but The Times always seems to register as a dead link when its still working, so don't worry about it. The inline citation spacing is that I noticed one had occurred before a comma (near the end of the article) as well as a space between citations in succession (ex. [1][2] [3]). Spacing issues always jump out at me, but the best way to find them is to use the find feature of Firefox/IE and insert "] space [" or "]," or "].". These are the best ways to find most issues with the spacing. Good job addressing some of these issues. Now that I've seen that someone is dedicated to improving the article, I'll review the prose tomorrow (the article is a little long and I'm tired tonight) for any content/sourcing issues. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I went through the prose and found multiple issues. The vast majority are easy to fix, mostly punctuation/grammar issues. I unstruck the lead issue since it appears the lead went back to five paragraphs. I will check on the article in a few days to check on its progress. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Good work on addressing many of the issues. I will leave the article on hold for another week for the other issues to be addressed. If you have any questions about any of them, leave a message after the respective issue. Keep it up, the article's looking much better. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps: Kept
Due to the lack of progress over the last week on the remaining issues, I addressed them. Please review my edits and make sure there are no errors. I removed the uncited statement from the article, be sure to readd it once a source is found. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be beneficial to update the access dates for all of the online sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)