Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gulf Oil/archive1

Gulf Oil
This is a business history and economics related article, of a kind that is not well represented in Wikipedia. It has recently been awarded Good Article status (at the second attempt) and has since been enhanced. It meets the criteria for Featured Article status and offers useful insights into current developments in business practice. Bob BScar23625 12:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

''Ladies and Gentlemen. Thankyou for your comments on the article, which are appreciated. My responses to those comments are annotated below in italics. Perhaps you would all be kind enough to take another look at the article?. Bob'' BScar23625 10:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Support I failed the original GA nomination. All my concerns where addressed quickly and I had no hesitation in renominating for GA. I have no hesitations in supporting this nomination for FA. Gnangarra 13:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

''Thankyou, Gideon. Bob'' BScar23625 10:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. There's very little inline sourcing. Many paragraphs don't have a source after them. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

''I have added several references, expanded some reference descriptions and moved a number of mid-para inline citations to end para positions. Bob'' BScar23625 10:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Some still don't have sources. I'm looking at the history, and 8 paragraphs don't have sources. Also, it shouldn't be listed as footnotes, it should be references. One more thing. There's an incomplete sentence in the history. Through its subsidiary Gulf General Atomic Inc it was active in the nuclear energy sector That's all it says as the end of the paragraph. Is there supposed to be a period, or is there more to the thought? Hurricanehink ( talk ) 18:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

''(1)The section title 'Footnotes' has been altered to 'References'. (2) I have added the citation for Gulf General Atomic (an item already in References), and might add a few more citations if it doesn't clutter up the look of the article. (3) Gulf got out of atomic power in the late 70s, which might be just as`well given the history of the Betelgeuse incident. Bob'' BScar23625 20:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There's still 7 paragraphs without citations in the history. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

''Some more citations added. Not everything in the History is based on published sources. For example, there is no published reference to the attempted Big Jobber strategic realignment. I only know about Big Jobber because I was working for Gulf at the time and played a very minor role in its implementation in Europe. Can you live with that?. Bob'' BScar23625 07:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

''You are entitled to a point of view on that. Central Some parts of the Gulf Oil and The Betelgeuse incident articles are based on my experience of working in the oil industry during the late 1970s and early 1980s. That was around 10 years before you were born (*). Thankyou for your input which is most welcome. Bob'' BScar23625 14:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC) (*) patronising comment - 5 gold star award 
 * I still object until everything is sourced. That doesn't sound very FA'ish to have unpublished information in it. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 11:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use ''rationales added, where appropriate. Bob'' BScar23625 07:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Object No Fair Use Rationales for images. If you add them, please denounce this object (make it a neutral, not a support). H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 17:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

''Your request has been complied with and there is nothing questionable about the Fair Use status of the images. So I have struck out your Object as allowed by your statement. I hope that is OK with you. Bob'' BScar23625 11:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Object 1. It needs a copyedit. 2. Infobox needed. 3. The logos are really compressed. Can you have it converted to SVG? 4. Poor referencing. a) not formatted correctly, b) points to sites where the information is not displayed/hidden. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  17:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

''(1) The text has been tidied up a little. (2) An additional para has been added to the Lead, but a Company Infobox might not be appropriate since Gulf has not been a company since 1984. Gulf is now a business network in the post-Fordist model. (3) The logos are small in order to meet fair use criteria. They might look better if you view them in a larger screen setting. I will consider converting to SVG some time. (4) The referencing has been tidied up (see response above). Unfortunately, the main GOI site seems down today - but I am sure this is just a temporary glitch. Bob'' BScar23625 10:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Object: Poor WP:LEAD, an infobox would help - Template:Infobox Company. - Tutmosis  01:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

''The Lead has been expanded. Thanks for drawing my attention to the Company Infobox template. The problem being that Gulf is not essentially a company. It is a network comprised of a variety of interests. Trying to produce a meaningful set of consolidated financials for such a network would involve a lot of original research. I guess it could be done, but that is not the task before us. Bob'' BScar23625 10:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Object External links are poorly formatted, and should be below the refs, not above. Tobyk777 07:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

''The references have been tidied up (see responses above). External links repositioned and descriptions expanded. Bob'' BScar23625 10:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Issues mentioned above have been taken care of quite well. --Srik e it ( talk ¦  ✉  )  11:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

''Thankyou, Srikeit. There are still 3 outstanding Objects, whose comments I have responded to. I will be very pleased to address any further concerns that those 3 reviewers may have. Bob'' BScar23625 11:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've done a major copy-edit on the first third (]. It's not only the language; it's the precision of the historical information and other queries that need to be addressed. Can you find someone who's distant from the text to go through the rest? I notice that User:AndyZ may be able to help. (See his User:AndyZ/Suggestions.) Tony 02:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

''Tony. Thankyou for the time and effort you have obviously invested in this article. I have accommodated the specific points you have raised and have invited a number of regular Wikipedia contributors (including your AndyZ) to take a look over it.'' Just a couple of asides.

''(1)	You have switched “New Economy” to “new economy”. But most management literature uses the term New Economy. This may seem odd, given that the same body of literature usually refers to “the new economic paradigm”. Strictly, I think we should adhere to common usage and thus use New Economy. But, I can live with “new economy”.''

''(2)	You have switched a quote from the published GOI Mission Statement into the main body of text (now final sentence of Lead). Strictly, I do not think you should do that since it implies that the item is our own writing while it is actually that of a GOI employee. This invites a charge of plagiarism – although I guess that the chances of  any such problem arising in this case is less than one in a million.''

''Once again, thankyou for the time and trouble you have taken. Bob'' BScar23625 16:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Some things I noticed: (in no particular order; many of them are minor issues)


 * There may be an applicable infobox for this article.

''I keep making this point. The whole thrust of the article is about the move from an Old Economy company based on industrial assets to a New Economy business network based on knowledge. Gulf effectively ceased to be a company in 1984. The article is not about GOI. GOI is just a paper holding company located in an offshore tax-haven. The main players in the Gulf business network include GOLP (a USA company) and GOCL (an Indian company). GOI has a minimal equity interest in both of these. The whole point about Gulf is that it isn't a company. Bob'' BScar23625 20:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Per WP:MOS, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading  ==Magellan's journey== , use  ==Journey== .


 * Please provide WP:CITE information for references/footnotes. See also WP:CITE/ES; templates like and  may be useful here.
 * External links should be like: Google instead of Google.

''AndyZ. I thank you for your contribution, but you have really lost me from this point on. I wonder if you are offering some standard comment, that may not be all that relevant in this particular case?. Bob'' BScar23625 20:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]
 * Double check for typos; things like ". [33]." and "profit.[19]."


 * Per WP:MOSNUM, at Units of measurement, numbers with SI units of measure should have conversions in US customary units and vice versa. These conversions should keep to similar values of precision. For example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth". Note that the converted unit of measure uses a standard abbreviation, while the source unit is spelled out in the text.


 * Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space -  between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&amp;nbsp;mm.


 * As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]


 * After a year, for consistency, a comma should either be used throughout the entire article or not used at all (for example, either In 1908, this happened or In 1908 this happened).


 * This article can use copyediting to ensure that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work.


 * Images with fair use tags need fair use rationales - please see WP:FUC.  (it may clearly be fair use to your viewpoint, but it would be more helpful to provide the rationale}}
 * rationale formatted as per fair use requirements for each image with appropraite in article directions. Gnangarra 15:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * A bit more wiki-linking can be done; for example, in the lead, links to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, London, and Cayman Islands wouldn't hurt (and please pipe the link for Mellon).
 * In case I missed anything important, you might want to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (again, as Tony has pointed it out to you before).
 * Thanks, Andy t 19:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * People editing this article may wish to use a 'dates' tab in edit mode. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. You will also get a 'units' tab. Hope that helps.

''Thankyou Andy. But please try to be a bit more specific. Have you actually read the article?. Bob'' BScar23625 20:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

''sorry - above comment sounds rude and is now struck. I have accommodated the specific points you make.''

On the matter of Bobblewik's date thing: I'd love to know the cache-clearing commands for Safari and IE on the Macintosh ... Tony 04:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Safari on Mac:
 * Click on 'Safari' menu, select 'Empty cache...'
 * IE on Mac OSX:
 * Click on 'Explorer' menu, select 'Preferences...'
 * IE on Mac OS9 and ealier:
 * Click on 'Edit' menu, select 'Preferences...'
 * Google is your friend. bobblewik 14:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)