Talk:Adar oilfield

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Adar oilfield/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This is a nice and well referenced article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   The lead is too short but the rest of the article's prose is looking good.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

The is a small and compact article. There isn't many problems with it but I will only focus on the problems with the article. The Adar oifield sounds interesting. I'll take up this review although I have some real life stuff to do today, I'll leave some comments in a couple of hours. Jaguar (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Initial comments

Lead:

• The lead appears to be a little on the short side. Considering the rest of the article, I think I little more information can be added to the lead.
• "The Adar oilfield (Block 3)," - what does Block 3 mean? Bearing in mind that is the first sentence of the article, the reader might not understand what the means.

I have expanded the lead to effectively sum up the article. Block 3 is illustrated in the infobox in File:Sudan Map Oelgas.png. It is a listed zone area Block 3. Have removed it as the map and caption explain this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• "However, until recently the focus has been on clearing the population away from the oilfield rather than on a longer term strategy for developing the region." - this is interesting, but it doesn't say why the focus was clearing the population away.

Why? Because the area was heavily populated and they wanted to build roads and infrastructure for setting up the site! Naturally the people don't won't to leave their homes and will only move if forced which may take time. Isn't it obvious?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have been tired when I wrote that! Jaguar (talk) 10:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Background and location:

• "Discharge from the marshes along the Adar is low except in years with exceptionally heavy rainfall." - what is 'the Adar' trying to refer to? Is it referring to the name of the oilfield or the area in South Sudan?

The Adar clearly refers to the Khor Adar which is mentioned just sentences earlier, hence the discharge. Added the word river to make clearer.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• "Chevron discovered the Adar Yale field in 1981" - confusing sentence. The paragraph begins with the Chevron company but it does not explain what Chevron is and what the company does. It does not even explain that they are a company!

Does not explain what Chevron is? Eh? It would be like explaining what Gulf, BP, Esso or Castrol is. I've added "Oil giant" but it wuld be reasonable to just say Chevron Corporation like in the lead.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Development and production:

• "American persons were forbidden to do business with the Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Company" - does 'persons' refer to American companies in the area or the people working at the Adadr oilfield? How about 'personnel' or 'people'?

Anybody American I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I like "American persons" - typical government-speak. "Americans" would be simpler, but I prefer to leave it as is. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

People:

• "Soon after Chevron had closed operations, government troops began attacking civilian settlements in the area" - surely 'government troops' can't be a good term to explain it? Which government? Asuming it was America or Canada, could there be 'American troops'?

I clarified in the lead - the Sudanese government, later helped by South Sudan militias. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Security:

• "The civil war ended in January 2005" - I know what this refers to. How about The Sudanese Civil War officially ended in January 2005.

Dr. B made that change. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

On hold

This is a small and well referenced article that has very few problems. The small lead was the only main problem with the article, but now the lead has certainly improved. Also, there are very few pictures, but this is no major concern for GA - I also understand that it would be a bit hard trying to take pictures of the Adar Yale in South Sudan! Don't worry about that.

It shouldn't take long to solve those minor copyediting issues, so once they have been addressed I will be happy to grant this GA status. Jaguar (talk) 10:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I will look over this this afternoon. Yes photos are always nice, but South Sudan unfortunately falls into the African category where photos are extremely rare even on the Internet..♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Minor copyedits have been made. I've reread it and it seems to be an effective decent summary of this oilfield now I think and should be good enough for GA if you do a google search on it, pretty well covered I think. Shame we don't have a photograph of the site but it is South Sudan after all. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Close - promoted

There have been a lot of improvements to the article and now it definately meets the GA criteria. The lead now complies per WP:LEAD and the article contains a lot of interesting information which makes it very easy to read. Don't worry about that photos, I'm assuming that even anyone taking pictures in the Adar oilfield would get in trouble due to the political activity! Other than that, very well done on building another Good Article! Jaguar (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Peer review

Should we subject this article to peer review?Lbertolotti (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adar oilfield. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.geoexpro.com/sfiles/7/41/6/file/GEOExPro03Sudan.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928170708/http://www.ecosonline.org/reports/2006/ECOS%20Melut%20Report%20final%20-text%20only.pdf to http://www.ecosonline.org/reports/2006/ECOS%20Melut%20Report%20final%20-text%20only.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)