Wikipedia:Peer review/Natural gas in Romania/archive1

Natural gas in Romania
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because i would like to try for a GA and i want some oppinions about it.

Thanks, Bine  Mai  18:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Section very piecemeal, unintegrated.
 * Lead
 * At present this is not carrying out its function as required by WP:LEAD. It is rather a hotch-potch of detail, most of which is not appropriate lead material. Needs to be rewritten as a concise summary of the article's content.
 * Various prose glitches:p
 * "cubical" - no such word. It's "cubic"
 * "country's" → "countries"
 * "proven" and "proved" in same sentence. Former is correct in this context
 * What does Tcf mean? Needs a link or explanation.
 * I wonder if it would be possible to find a more interesting image than the production chart? Lead images are a way of drawing people into an article, and a production graph may not be the best way of doing this.
 * History:
 * There are a few problems with the general prose, including some awkward constructions and the use of non-idiomatic words and phrases. For example, the first sentence should read: "The first natural gas deposit within the present-day territory of Romania was discovered in 1909, in Sărmăşel, Mureş County (then part of Austria-Hungary), during geological researches on potassium salts."
 * I can't go through all the odd usgaes, but "prodigious" is definitely the wrong word. Attention for a good copyeditor would be very beneficial.
 * The chronology is strange. After discussing things that happened in 1941-42 you jump back to 1919.
 * The Second World War is not mentioned; surely this has some impact on gas production and transmission?
 * More strangely, the history ends 30 years ago. According to your lead chart, production peaked in the early 1980s and is now at less than a third of its peak levels. What's the story here? Surely the rise and fall in production of gas in Romania should be a major feature in your story?
 * Production
 * Map caption is misleading ("Romania in red") Lots of countries are indicated in red, and on this scale Romania isn't identifiable.I presume the intended meaning is "Romania is one of the countries within the highest production band, indicated in red".
 * The section is overdetailed with production figures and market share percentages.
 * "Romania ranks fourth in the European Union in terms of natural gas production just after the United Kingdom, Netherlands and Germany." This needs to be reconciled with the lead statement that Romania ranks third in the EU for natural gas reserves. The statements are not contradictory but they need some explanation.
 * Other matters
 * There is an over-emphasis throughout the rest of the article on figures, which makes for very tedious reading. The prose needs to be made more interesting.
 * A few format points within the references needs attention. For example, sources in non-English languages need to be indicated; printed sources, e.g. Wall Street Journal need to be italicised; retrieval dates need to be in a consistent format.

Enough, then, for you to get your teeth into. As I am not able to watch peer reviews at the moment, please contact me at my talkpage if you want clarification on anything arising from this review. And good luck with the article. Brianboulton (talk) 11:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)