Talk:OPEC/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 14:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, nice to meet you, I will be taking up this review. I'll be reviewing this article against the six good article criteria (WP:GA?). As way of introduction, I mostly edit anatomy and medical articles. I have however reviewed several prominent, complex and popular articles, amongst these China, Female genital mutilation, and Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. I will take my time for this complex and popular topic. I look forward to hearing from you soon, --Tom (LT) (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Well-written and easy to understand. Below for a suggestions
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Yes
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Addressed
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Addressed
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Addressed
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Addressed
	7. Overall assessment.

Because this is a complex topic, I will divide my review into a short section outlining major issues, and then a more through review following. I'll take 2-3 more days to re-read the article and have a look at some extra resources, and then respond here. --Tom (LT) (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tom, welcome aboard. I'll be quite busy until April 15 with an important real-life deadline. I'll be happy to address any relatively quick issues before then – but if any issues would be more time-consuming, I might not be able to address them properly until the second half of April. Thanks for understanding. —Patrug (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Prose

Overall excellent --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions - would recommend some of the in-text parentheses are removed and integrated as just sentences, eg
"By the time of the Libyan Civil War in 2011, OPEC was calling for more efforts by governments and regulatory bodies to curb "excessive speculation" in oil futures markets, blaming financial speculators for increasing volatility in prices, disconnected from market fundamentals"
"Although many believe that OPEC acts as a cartel when it sets production quotas to maintain price,[72] others point out that widespread cheating largely neutralizes OPEC's collective ability to influence prices"

Infobox - is it necessary to include the population or area of OPEC? It is not a political union so I don't think we should include this. We don't for eg United nations or World Health Organisation. Anyhow this may have been dealt with by other editors, this is just my suggestions. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Removed parentheses, leaving those sentences as minor digressions from the historical chronology. Should be able to improve the flow by creating paragraphs elsewhere to focus on the membership & cartel issues, as you suggested. Trimmed infobox, agreeing that population & area don't need highlighting beyond the Membership tables. —Patrug (talk) 09:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability

Citations needed for these sections:--Tom (LT) (talk) 05:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"To combat falling revenue from oil sales, in 1982 Saudi Arabia pushed OPEC for audited national production quotas in an attempt to limit output and boost prices. When other OPEC nations failed to comply, Saudi Arabia first slashed its own production from 10 million barrels daily in 1979–1981 to just one-third of that level in 1985. When this proved ineffective, Saudi Arabia reversed course and flooded the market with cheap oil, causing prices to fall below US$10/bbl and higher-cost producers to become unprofitable"
"Benchmarks are used because oil prices differ based on variety, grade, delivery date and location, and other legal requirements."
"Other well-known benchmarks are West Texas Intermediate (WTI), Dubai Crude, Oman Crude, and Urals oil."
"Legislative proposals to limit sovereign immunity, such as the NOPEC Act"
"due to the country's daunting political difficulties."

Done —Patrug (talk) 06:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations

I have checked random samples from the article. Only this sentence may need rewording - is almost exactly the same as the source document:--Tom (LT) (talk) 05:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1949, Venezuela and Iran were the first countries to move toward the establishment of OPEC, by inviting Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to exchange views and explore avenues for regular and closer communication "
Several matches from this sentence

(including one self-published book here: [1]) but they pleasingly seem to have been adopted from here

Again many sources copying this sentence from here "OPEC added to its goals the selling of oil for the socio-economic growth of poorer nations. The OPEC Special Fund was conceived in Algiers, Algeria, in March 1975, and was formally established the following January"
And again and again.

I can't find any other samples taken from other sources in this article. I do however note that this article forms the basis for quite a lot of other information provided about OPEC on the internet, perhaps because it is clear and well-written. Well done to the authors! --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Good catch on the 1949 sentence. —Patrug (talk) 09:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage

What is covered presently is covered well - not too in-depth neither too superficial. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To meet the criteria for "broadness" a section about "Criticism" or "Issues" should be included. There seem to be three main issues and two others I identify after reading this: --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Membership requirements such as production quotas and membership fees that cause members to opt in and out
Cartelisation and criticism of by other countries and consumers
Disputes between member countries and how they impact on OPEC - including regional issues and politicomilitary conflicts
?Environmental concerns and protests related to OPEC and promotion of oil?
?Future of OPEC in terms of membership, oil prices, importance with fracking and changing nature of energy production?

Specifically mentioning by name the eight observer countries in the "Membership" section would improve this article. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is included is written neutrally. However, I think the overall neutrality of the article may be improved by including some mention of the issues facing OPEC --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible ~~As a start, I'll flesh out~~ OK, I fleshed out the Membership section by adding info on departures, observers, cartels, and conflicts, while also keeping much of this info in the appropriate History subsections for the chronological context.

In the concluding sentence of the lead section, and the concluding paragraph of the article, we refer to non-OPEC and carbon-free energy sources as being among OPEC's potential long-term challenges – but environmental pressures haven't (yet) become a major issue that would seem to warrant more coverage in the OPEC article. Even in more-detailed articles like Climate change mitigation, Paris Agreement, 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the entire Category:Petroleum economics, there's no mention of OPEC being pressured (yet) by environmental concerns. It's definitely something to keep watching in the future, though for now I think the article ought to minimize any WP:CRYSTALBALL speculation, since even the experts have no reliable idea of the outcome.

Hope the broader coverage is acceptable now? —Patrug (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done —Patrug (talk) 00:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stable

Yes --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done For a complex topic with such high readership, I think the article's recent stability was largely achieved by limiting coverage of controversial issues (cartels, wars, predictions, etc) to just the "bare bones". I'll need to ponder how those issues might get beefed up without slipping back toward unstable edits again. —Patrug (talk) 09:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, you do make a good point. That said there are many controversial articles on WP and I'm sure there is a way to do this with nuance and finesse. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: you've covered this in a very thoughtful way. Well done. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Checked and verified. Images have a good rationale for inclusion. Two issues: --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thematic image "Dramatically striking oil in Saudi Arabia" could be removed - is pre-OPEC era and doesn't really add to the article's text
I suggest removing the final image of North Dakota as it doesn't add materially to the article and the US is not an OPEC member.

Possible Actually, I thought those two photos were pretty appropriate illustrations for the 2014–2016 oil glut, which is basically an enormous production battle between conventional Middle Eastern gusher wells (I couldn't find a similar post-1960 photo on Commons) and high-tech US shale frackers. I rewrote the two captions a bit – see if the rationale seems better now? Or would it make sense just to show this photo of Saudi Oil Minister Ali Al-Naimi, who's cited as the main strategist behind the glut? —Patrug (talk) 09:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will think about this and get back to you. I've removed an old caption you changed which was accidentally within the body of the paragraph. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done —Patrug (talk) 00:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

A great article that appears to be the source for quite a lot of other websites for OPEC-related material, always a good sign. Some issues before this article can be passed, but things that can be ironed out in a short timespan. I make some recommendations about how the article matches the guidelines above, and am happy to discuss them with you. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A few of your points will take time for me to ponder, but most seem very reasonable, and I've tackled a few of the "quickies" already. Hope it's OK for me to mark sections of the review "Done" as they're addressed – or is this something that only the reviewer should do? (The summary table is all yours, of course!) —Patrug (talk) 09:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping this up to date. I note you originally said you were unavailable before the 15th - I'm happy to wait until you have more time. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your patience. I'll chip away at the simpler items first, though I'll probably need to wait past the 15th to broaden the coverage of controversial issues like cartels & wars. —Patrug (talk) 06:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of it might actually be ready now. Take a fresh look? —Patrug (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. I think this article meets & exceeds the GA criteria. Well done for your edits to bring this popular and contentious article to GA! --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LT910001: Tom, thanks so much for your straightforward & constructive suggestions, including the WP:DYK tip that I'm pursuing next. You made my introduction to the GA process a very positive experience.

Would you have any guidance on some quick procedural questions:

Is there an automatic process that will add OPEC to the list of articles at WP:GA/SS, or should I do this manually? (It also never got added to WP:Good articles/recent, perhaps because of the typo when you set action2date=10 April 2014 instead of 2016 in Talk:OPEC's Article history template. For now, I've corrected the year manually.)
I nominated the article under "Economics and business: Businesses and organizations" – but after seeing the full lists at WP:GA/SS, I think OPEC might fit better under "Politics and government: International organizations" (like NATO & EU, but strangely not UN)? Is this another case where I can make adjustments manually?
If you have a couple minutes for a quick glance, do you think my related shorter article Petrodollar recycling might be a plausible GA nomination? Or is a specialized "spin-off" topic not considered broad enough for the GA process?

Thanks very much for any advice, or if you can point me in the right direction. —Patrug (talk) 00:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome - thanks for your work on the article! Sorry about that, that was my oversight. I've added it to government and politics / international organisations which as you say fits quite well. I'll reply on your talk page for the other article. I am not sure about "recent" but feel free to list it there if that's what's done :). --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]