User:Kikoeta/sandbox

= Article Evaluation: Petroleum Reservoir = This is an evaluation for the Petroleum Reservoir article done for Dr. Glass's Introduction to Environmental Science class at Georgia Tech (EAS1600).

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic?
Most everything in the article is relevant to the topic from what I can tell (not a petroleum expert by any means). There was nothing that stuck out to me as out of place or unneeded.

Is there anything that distracted you?
Structural traps is confusing when reading thing the provided key then going back and forth between diagram and text, a visual key would be much better (with accommodating text). The same goes for Stratigraphic traps.

Is any information out of date?
The field of oil and petroleum hasn't been changed much in the past 20 years, so most of the information is correct as far as I would assume. Of course, industry terms may change or shift, but that isn't the main concern with the article, as jargon is not allowed, or heavily discouraged.

Is anything missing that could be added?
The summary doesn't include anything about formation or geography whatsoever. This could be fixed by adding as a separate section (for geography), or by adding a blurb about the formation of them into the summary. Hydrodynamic Trap has nearly no information on it, and could be explained in depth I'm sure. Seal/ cap rock needs fixing for its title, and could benefit from a diagram of how the rock actually seals in the oil/gas, rather than just plain words. No definition of "Virgin" for drive mechanisms, this could use explanation and actual explanation of what "drive" is. Nearing jargon with its usage, not really understandable by the layman. Since it's in the article, it might also be worth including in the summary.

What else could be improved?
Estimating Reserves would be better phrased as Reserve Estimation in my opinion. Production "factors" really needs to be expanded on to kill that monster of a sentence about the various factors. That has no place being in an article like this, and I'm sure that it's possible to hyperlink to other articles about these things. Formation needs the list cleaned up, also extremely unclear as to what is meant by "pressure cooking" in terms of a sedimentary basin.

'' Oil fields is the section that is in need of the most help, and all of it will be combed through and revised. ''

Is scientific information presented clearly, accurately, and without jargon?
Oil field section has multiple issues, including a possibility of original research and need for additional citation. Jargon is sprinkled throughout the article, and if it's critical to understanding, no information is given to what it means in layman's terms.

Does the article link to other Wikipedia articles for related topics?
Yes, there is a solid "See also" section at the bottom of the page. There are also links within the article itself giving helpful information.

Is the article neutral?
The article is neutral and doesn't frame oil drilling or the petroleum industry in any kind of light. It presents the facts and lets the reader know the basics about what an oil field is, how it forms, where some are, and basic mechanisms behind them. It doesn't portray anything that I can identify as positive bias towards the oil industry either, by use of language or sources.

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
I have not come to a complete conclusion on the issue, but Schlumberger Limited is a large portion of the sources, and they also do business in the field. I have not yet found if the source material was rewritten in a way to provide a neutral view, as there are so many source materials to dig through. Other than this, there are not any claims that are ostentatiously biased toward a particular position on the subject of oil and petroleum, or the politics concerning them.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Schlumberger Limited seems to be overrepresented in the sources, with 7 of the 19 sources being attributed to them. That is an issue in my opinion, but it could very well be that they're the only source of reliable information on the topic, since they have been around for so long. There is an under-representation of the geologic and geographic sources, with almost all the geographic information coming from out of date Wikipedia articles.

Do the links work for citations?
Links 1, 5, and 13 are all broken or need updating in some regard. Link 19 links to the Google Books page of the book in question, which in my opinion it should not.

Does the sources support the claims in the article?
The sources do support the claims in the article (the ones that have sources at least). There's no construing or misleading takes on any of the sources.

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?
Not all are, in fact that's one of the issues with the Oil Field section of the article. There appear to be a lot of facts that have been quoted on a whim. These are numerical facts as well, not just passing things that could get away with being unreferenced for sake of simplicity and cleanliness of the references section.

Where does the information come from?
The information comes from a wide variety of places, with a number of sources from academia, but also from websites seemingly picked from odds and ends, or just random searches. It doesn't appear like it's been well vetted from my point of view. The Schlumberger issue has been discussed prior.

Are these neutral sources?
As mentioned before, I am not completely sure if the sources that come from the oil and petroleum industry themselves are biased in any way. The writing in the article would make me think that it is not biased, as most of the sources for oil and petroleum mask as "educational" resources, which could be trusted to a degree upon further examination.

If biased, is that biased noted?
If it is biased towards any particular source, that is not noted in the article.

What kind of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
There's some interesting conversations dating back all the way to 2007 about the name of the article, clarifying quotes, a misused photograph, some ideas about splitting the article when it talks about Drive Mechanisms, and a few other things. The most pertinent of that is representing the topic of "Oil Fields" correctly, as an oil field in layman's terms is just a place that oil is being extracted, or lies beneath the ground waiting to be extracted. That doesn't necessarily qualify as a broader petroleum reservoir, so there was an issue brought up about it in 2020. That user is very active up to today (multiple times today, in fact), so I look forward to their feedback on my edits.

How is the article rated?
It's rated as a Start-class article of Mid-importance to the WikiProject Geology project. It's not yet been rated by WikiProject Energy.

Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
It is a part of WikiProject Geology and WikiProject Energy.

= Notes on Articles Provided: =

Alvarado 2010:

 * Good information on extraction methods (IOR/EOR)

Babadagli 2017:

 * Talks about mature fields and yield calculation in too much depth for the layman

Chenzago 2017:

 * Talks about the theory behind formation of the reservoirs themselves