Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Public Policy/Courses/Political Economy of Technology and Science fall 2010/2

Abby Chrisinger

In Calla Feucht's comparison of the articles Acra (fortress) and Negawatt power she provides clear distinctions between the differences and similarities she found within these articles. She thoroughly examines the references and research that each article provides, and explains why these made or did not make these articles credible or reliable sources. Through this comparison, she offers an honest analysis of these articles, yet still leaves room for the reader to have their own thoughts.

Abby Chrisinger (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article Unconventional oil and today's featured article United States Senate election in California, 1950 both follow a similar format pattern, but are very different where content is concerned. As a featured article, "United States Senate election in California, 1950" is able to offer more initial background information. It is then divided up into five other subcategories in order to present further information on the topic at hand in an unbiased fashion. Because this topic has to do with an election, the author of this article thought that it would be useful to provide images and statistics to give the reader a better understanding of what this election looked like. This article includes dozens of political terms and names that may be difficult for the average reader to navigate, so there are multiple hyperlinks that will direct the reader to pages that will provide further information concerning these political terms. One major difference between this article and "Unconventional Oil", is that "United States Senate election in California, 1950", is an article that was written about history and those everything leading up to that particular event, while "Unconventional oil" is more of a current, informative article.

The Wikipedia article "Unconventional oil" provides very little background information on the topic. Unlike "United States Senate election in California, 1950", this article lacks the insight and clarity that a featured article is able to provide. Although there are several subcategories within this article that are able to provide the reader with additional information through hyperlinks, none of the subcategories are able to provide enough information on their own without using these links. For example, the subcategory on Biofuels is only two sentences long and provides very little information.

Abby Chrisinger (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Erica Mulford

The Wikipedia article Micro hydro and the featured article Like a Rolling Stone differ slightly in structure and overall format, but vary quite significantly in content. The micro hydro article gives us a brief and basic description of what exactly micro hydro power is. There are six subcategories within this description to further describe the components of micro hydro systems (which includes see also, references, and external links). For the complicated processes involved with this system, there are available hyperlinks to other Wikipedia articles which offer further description to the reader. When compared to the Wikipedia article Like a Rolling Stone, the micro hydro article lacks depth in content and has less available references. The article provides readers with a basic knowledge; however, there seems to be a wide range of missing information. For instance, there is little information provided on the history of micro hydro power, comparisons with other Sustainable energy technologies or techniques, and the abundance or even efficiency of these systems.

The Wikipedia article Like a Rolling Stone provides a very in depth description, history, and analysis of the song. There are ten subcategories to offer a full understanding of the components of song and the song writer- Bob Dylan (including notes, references, and Wikipedia:External links. The article is full of numerous references, hyperlinks, facts of the history of the song and the potential influences upon Bob Dylan at the time of writing this song. The structure of the two articles is very similar: there is an overall description called a lead section (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section)), subcategories (providing more in depth details and understanding of the subject), a notes page, and finally references at the end of the article. However, the micro hydro article has a see also category, while the Like a Rolling Stone article has a “notes” category. The two articles meet the requirements of a Wikipedia article: a neutral point of view (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view) in which neither of the articles provide a biased view point, no original research presented (Wikipedia:No original research), and verifiability (Wikipedia:Verifiability). Due to the clarity, extend of information, and available references, the featured article Like a Rolling Stone contains more depth and offers the reader more understanding than the micro hydro article.

James Sheats’ comparison of the Homer's Phobia and Unconventional oil provides an overall sound analysis of the two articles. The Unconventional Oil article almost completely abides by the three rules required for a Wikipedia article. However, it still lacks a good amount of content and it is slightly biased. The Homer’s Phobia article has a higher grade of content and seems to be more credible, but Sheats mentions that making the subcategories, which filled with a large amount of content, is more straightforward and may be more difficult to accomplish in the Unconventional Oil article. Sheats notes that newspapers entail credibility. While newspapers can have a fair amount of credibility, there can be a large amount of bias; which is dependent on the author and his or her credibility on the topic which he or she is discussing.

Erica Mulford (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Maryann Sniezek

Erica did an excellent job comparing the Wikipedia article Micro hydro with the featured article Like a Rolling Stone. She successfully explained how the structures of the articles are very similar, with the only difference being that the Micro hydro article has a "See also" category, while the Like a Rolling Stone article has a “Notes” category. She made it clear that the article Micro hydro has less references and is lacking in content compared to the featured article. She even mentioned specific sections of the Micro hydro article that could be expanded upon: history of micro hydro power, comparisons with other sustainable energy technologies or techniques, and the abundance or even efficiency of these systems. Erica also noted that both articles meet the requirements of a Wikipedia article: a neutral point of view, no original research, and verifiability.

Marian Sokolski (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article Biomass briquettes differs significantly from the featured article Tropical Storm Chantal (2001) in terms of its structure, the use of references, and the weight of content. The articles Biomass briquettes and Tropical Storm Chantal (2001) are both structured with a title at the top of the article, and with various internal links and images within the article. Tropical Storm Chantal (2001), however, is structured even further to show a distinct lead section and subsections. Each subsection is titled with a header. For example, subsections of the featured article Tropical Storm Chantal (2001) include "Meteorological history," "Preparations," and "Impact." There is a "See also" section that includes links to related Wikipedia articles as well as a "References" section. The only extra section included in the article Biomass briquettes is a section titled "External links," which links to non-Wikipedia articles. The entirety of the article Biomass briquettes seems to simply be the lead section. Unlike the featured article, Biomass briquettes has no reference section. The lack of structure and references in the Wikipedia article Biomass briquettes has a lot to due with its lack of content. The featured article shows a good example of how there is a significant amount of content for each subsection. Each topic discussed is given equal weight. Although equal weight is given to each idea in Biomass briquettes, the development of the content is greatly lacking.

Although the Wikipedia article Biomass briquettes has a different structure, use of references, and content than the featured article Tropical Storm Chantal (2001), both articles follow the three rules of Wikipedia: a neutral point of view, no original research, and verifiability. In both articles, there is no bias within the provided information and only information that can be supported by reliable sources is used. The featured article shows verifiability by listing the references at the bottom of the article. Although there are no references for "Biomass briquettes," it is still verifiable because none of the information provided is likely to be challenged.

Marian Sokolski (talk) 21:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Erica Harriman

Maryann compared the articles Biomass briquettes and Tropical Storm Chantal (2001). It is made clear that the article "Tropical Storm Chantal" is more thorough than "Biomass briquettes" in the way of content and length. While "Tropical Storm Chantal" has sections and subsections, the biomass article does not. It also does not have a reference section and the only links included are non-wikipedia, external ones. Equal weight is given to each side of the argument in both articles, and Maryann mentions that both articles meet the three rules of Wikipedia.

Harrimel (talk) 00:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The Featured article Tropical Storm Chantal (2001) is very different from the article Carbon emissions reporting. After the title in the "Carbon emissions reporting article", it is alerted to readers that the article does not cite sources, that weasle words and vague phrasing is used, and that a world-wide view of of the subject is not given. There are no images or figures given, and the only links are external. There are quotations that are not cited, and other information, such as "...the United Kingdom, Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has described climate change as the 'greatest environmental challenge facing the world today'" could possibly be challenged by someone, and needs a citation and an opposing viewpoint represented.

The article "Tropical Storm Chantal" however, is a well layed out, informational artivcle. There is a side panel with a picture of the storm and key information such as dates the storm formed and dissipated, as well as the highest wind speed Chantal acheived. There are four sections to the article. All of the information is referenced at the bottom of the page, and there are links to other wikipedia articles. This article abides by the three rules of Wikipedia; a neutral point of view, no new research, and verifiability. The "Carbon emissions reporting" article does not have any new research, but it does not verified by sources and does not have a neutral point of view.

Harrimel (talk) 00:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

James Sheats

The articles Homer's Phobia and Unconventional oil are structured differently but for good reason. Homer's Phobia discusses the plot, production, and societal reception of the 15th episode in the eighth season of the television show The Simpsons. This is fitting because such aspects regarding television shows are time sensitive and therefore should be covered chronologically. The sensitive subject of the episode was heterosexuality. Unconventional oil simply explains the types of petroleum obtained from means other than an oil well. Though characteristics of each type of petroleum are touched upon, such as composition and flow rates, the actual processes through which they are acquired are left out. Also, the article, ever so briefly, mentions environmental concerns.

The featured article, Homer's Phobia, clearly follows all Wikipedia entry guidelines by staying neutral, containing no original research, and citing meaningful sources for verifiability. Many of the sources used were from newspapers which not only entails a certain level of credibility but keeps much of the information given unbiased to a certain extent. The information given also represents both positive and negative reactions to the controversial topic of the episode. Unconventional oil seems to stay somewhat neutral though, due to questionable sources and a probable lack of editors with related expertise, this neutrality may be a little skewed. Some sources, for example, are pulled from scientific journals yet some are from corporations and blogs. All in all, Homer's Phobia is clearly a more complete and sound article when compared to Unconventional oil.

Maryann's comparison of Biomass briquettes and Tropical Storm Chantal does a good job of specifying stylistic and structural differences. She explains how the featured article, Tropical Storm Chantal provides full and extensive sections where the biomass article resides almost completely in the lead section. This points out how development of content and organization can really affect the quality of a Wikipedia entry. However, Maryann also mentions that adherence to the three main entry rules by both articles is apparent.

Jmsheats (talk) 01:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Eric Rothschild

James' analysis of Homer's Phobia and Unconventional oil accurately compares the structural differences in the articles by stating how the featured article, "Homer's Phobia" explains the plot, how it was produced, and the overall theme while "Unconventional Oil" focused on the functional definition of petroleum along with the chemical properties and environmental issues. At the end of his analysis, he clearly states that both of the articles follow the three laws of Wikipedia by not taking a specific bias, original work, and citing credible sources.

Rothboy2 (talk) 03:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Biomass briquettes and Acra (fortress) vary in structure, and references. "Acra (fortress)" is clearly a featured article because the structure contains an appropriate introduction followed by a detailed section of the history along with issues as to where exactly the real location is. The Acra was a fortress that played a strong role in the Maccabean Revolt and the controversy surrounding the fortress is where exactly the real Acra is. Due to lack of evidence and only relying on literary analysis, historians have determined a few different locations but have not yet determined the exact Acra. At the end of the article, a bibliography contains more than 50 footnotes followed by about 30 references. This characteristic of the article supplies credibility thus granting it the honor of being a featured article.

Biomass briquettes provides an explanation of the topic in one paragraph, simply explaining how a briquette is basically a brick of material that grows freely such as bamboo. It's quick and to the point, but is clearly far from being a featured article given that there is no bibliography or references, simply just a few links going to different websites. Even though the credibility and structure of the articles vary, they both follow the laws of Wikipedia. Even though the location of the Acra is controversial, no bias is presented in the article and there are no thoguhts by the author relating to the topic. The same goes for "Biomass briquettes" and both articles contain no original work. Even though "Biomass briquettes" does not contain a bibliography and references section, the information seems credible enough to follow the third guideline.

Rothboy2 (talk) 03:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Calla Feucht

The articles Acra (fortress) and Negawatt power are both intended to be purely factual descriptions. Despite this basic similarity, the structures of the two articles are vastly different due to the severe lack of content in the Negawatt power article. The featured Acra (fortress) article is well-referenced and well-researched with reputable sources and no apparent original research. The sections within the article are all weighted equally. However, the Negawatt power article is sorely lacking in its research, having only two references and not enough material to warrant even a single subtopic within the article. There does not appear to be any original research, but the lack of references makes this difficult to verify. There seems to be a strong focus on an economic view of the topic, but without further information within the article, it is impossible to distinguish whether this is a purely economic term or a scientific term as well.

Feuchtcc (talk) 02:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Aaron Brown

the article Acra (fortress) and Micro hydro both focus on facts and have supporting links at the bottom. Micro hydro could use a few more in text citations with figures such as power generation and lacks the in-depth details of the Acra article. However as a whole i did not see anything wrong with the micro hydro article as far as content issues or format. it does lack the thoroughness of the feature article.

Some differences in citing between the two articles is how and what is used to cite. in micro hydro there are no footnotes in the text itself but there is a list of references down at the bottom. the Acra article lacks the similar articles section of the Micro hydro article. the Acra article also has far more refrences to ouside sources yet has much fewer links at the very bottom.

atb2393 (talk)16:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Erich Lang

James Sheats’ analysis of Homer’s Phobia and Unconventional Oil covers all of topics he was supposed to cover and gives specific examples of how the articles are good or bad. He covers exactly how the references may be questionable and why the article may be biased. His writing also addresses of the three main rules of Wikipedia and provides good background information about each topic. James also provides a good summary of the episode and comparison of the different writing styles and what makes the Simpsons' article better.

The article about Tool is much more detailed than the article Negawatt Power It is written much more professionally and is more detailed in every aspect. It starts with a summary outlining the band’s crowning moments and a description of their musical style. The article continues with corresponding headers and pictures that help the article flow and appear more appealing and easier to navigate. There is also a table of the band’s discography and singles and links to the Wikipedia articles about each of these; helpful information that I have used from Wikipedia for other bands. The Tool article also contains 120 references, a couple literature links, and a link to the band’s official website. The Wikipedia article about Tool is also unbiased, contains information from reputable sources, and contains links to articles that are similar to the band. The article is verifiable because of the large number of footnotes and I could not find any mention or appearance of new research.

The other article, Negawatt Power is both vague and poorly written in comparison. The article starts off with the history and continues to talk about the different aspects of negawatt in short paragraphs that use choppy sentences. The article only references two sources, showing that little research was actually done for the topic. The article is also contains no related pictures or visuals and is much more dull. Negewatt Power does contain links to similar fields and articles that may help in the general understanding of electricity and its power grid system. The article does maintain a neutral point of view, though it does not have very good verifiability and may contain new research since footnotes are not attached to most of the paragraphs. v

Ryan Hilton

Eric Lang's article analysis about Tool is a well written review. He breaks down each article and compares and contrast the two articles well, following the online directions. Eric makes it clear that the Tool article is more professionally written, follows the wiki guidelines, and is more detailed than his article Negawatt Power

The article Guinea Pig is a well detailed article that contains more than enough information about guinea pigs. Compared to the assigned area the content is completely different, but the structure of the overall article is similar. Both have quick links that can 'jump' to a specific area of the article. They also have an overview section which briefly defines the subject as well as picture to show what the subject is. Both articles are well referenced, with tons of reliable references at the bottom of the page. Overall this is an well written article that follows Wikipedia's guidelines.

New Potato Caboose

Drew Hawley

The article about fighting in ice hockey is a very well wrote article and provides a lot of information about the various leagues, rules, etiquette(that's right there's etiquette in fighting), famous people who fought a lot in those hockey leagues. The article represents the data very well because it utilizes sources and statistics to prove it's points. This article and our article will have similar topics but not similar information, we intend to have laws that are being processed, history of the problem, famous people who have been consider viable in this topic. All in all I found the article "fighting in ice hockey" very interesting and very informative. The article also keeps in the guidelines of wikipedia and does not use a opinion or biased side in the topic.

James's article was the easiest to read because I have watched "The Simpsons" for a long time, I grew up watching the television show with my sisters and friends. James compares the article with another one of different nature and allows the reader to realize the difference between the two subjects. There is also a clear summary of the article in which he tells the reader about what the articles he read contains. air3drew

Tripp Loflin

Erica Harriman compared the articles Tropical Storm Chantal (2001) and Carbon emissions reporting. Her comparison makes it evident that the two articles were written in very different styles with their own content layout, documentation, and presentation. The “Tropical Storm Chantal (2001)” article was written in a very well documented and presentable fashion, while the “Carbon emissions reporting” article lacks convincing evidence from documented references. Erica makes it certain that the article “Carbon emissions reporting” needs a lot of work to meet the specifications for an appropriate article.

Loflinrm (talk) 15:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Tripp compared and contrasted the two articles Hanford Site and Negawatt Power. He correctly identifies the quality difference between the featured and standard article. Although Wikipedia aims to provide non-biased information, Tripp has taken note of a slight residual of bias in the Hanford Site article and a more noticeable bias in the Negawatt Power article. Also, he points out the important structural difference of the two.

Hawkinjw (talk) 00:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The Featured Article Hanford Site is a very well documented article that highlights key words/ideas in a well presented format (i.e. content layout). There are numerous links within the article that point to other sources of information that relate to the main article and were included for clarification on certain ideas. There are a total of 13 sections within the article that range from background information to more detailed information that required tabular presentations like the different organizations that were involved at ‘’Hanford Site’’. The article appears to have been written in a fairly neutral point-of-view, but there lingers the sense that the author(s) may have been pro-nuclear.

The article Negawatt Power is different than the “Hanford Site” article, mainly because of the core content in the two articles. In the “Negawatt Power” article, the information presented is more opinionated with comments like, “Establishing a market may require legislation”. This statement does not, nor did not, have any substantial evidence to back up the claim. If such a market were to develop, then the author could cite the presence of the market and verify the effectiveness of such a market. One of the biggest differences in the two articles is that the “Negawatt Power” article is not structured appropriately. In that article, there is no content section with headers and subheadings for each section. While the entire article is a collection of a few sentences here and there, different sections would help organize the material in a more presentable format. The two articles do make references and have external links to other relevant articles as supporting information. More information, descriptions, figures and tables would be appropriate for the “Negawatt Power” article.

Loflinrm (talk) 15:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy Dempsey

Erich Lang compared the articles Tool and Negawatt Power. His comparison highlights the quality and overall coverage differences of the two articles. The "Tool" article covers a wide variety of areas concerning the band with a deep level of detail in each area. The article has a professional quality with the style and amount of references. The article "Negawatt Power" was written with a somewhat amateur quality with far less detail. Erich points out the strengths of the "Tool" article in comparison with the other to make it evident the amount of work needed to perfect the "Negawatt Power" article.

Jdempsey113 (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The Featured Article The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time contains highly developed information and details about the game. The content layout is professional quality, as is the key themes. The article features a very large amount of links to other pages that contain even more information about characters and other points of interest. The wording in the article is informative and clear. 101 references are given at the bottom of the page which give credit to the facts within the article. The article holds many lesser known details about the reception of the game, the development team and the progression of ideas concerning the games creation. The article keeps a neutral point of view and gives only the facts.

The article Demand Side Management is quite the opposite from "The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time" article. With the "Demand Side Management" article there is a very evident lack of professionalism. The article features a brief summary of what "Demand Side Management" is and how it works but not much more. Only one reference is given which makes it seem like the information was copied out of the source just to take up space. It seems that the "Demand Side Management" contains some bias but this could easily come from the lacking number of sources. The articles explains briefly how demand side management entails actions of the consumers but still leaves many questions unanswered. More examples and data will be necessary to improve this page.

Jdempsey113 (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Jon Hawkins

Jon Hawkins compared the articles United States Senate election in California, 1950 and Energy Security. Jon's comparisons between these two articles are direct and straight to the point, including good criticism of Energy Security. Specifically, the main comparison he chooses is the differences between reliabilities, where the Energy Security article is not completely reliable or well-cited, and the United States Senate election in California, 1950 article is the opposite.

Tessitjp (talk) 23:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The Featured Article United States Senate election in California, 1950 is a very detailed and frequently cited article. The article is divided into several main topics involved in the overall article. The reliability of the article shines through in its unbiased presentation of the differing aspects of the election. The author(s) take the side of no political party. The author(s) also go as far as to include a table containing the poll results from every California county, straight from the Secretary of State of California. Similarly, pictures are inserted at appropriate times to show such things as campaign signs, important persons, and clarifying images. Along with the numerous citations (over 100!) a substantial bibliography appears at the end of the article.

Energy Security is much shorter and contains far fewer citations than United States Senate election in California, 1950. The article begins with two boxes stating that the article needs attention from an expert on the subject, and additional citations are needed for verification. This alone could deter an individual searching for reliable information. The article gives a brief overview of the concept of energy security and highlights a few issues. In a section titled Short Term Security, several examples of energy sources are given. The author(s) fail, however, to go into any great amount of detail on any one of them. One was even cut straight from another article!

Hawkinjw (talk) 00:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

James Tessitore

I chose the Featured Article 1981 Irish hunger strike, to avoid being repetitive. It is hard to compare this article to the article assigned to me because the article assigned to me has not yet been written. Thus, I will try to outline the featured article as best I can. It begins with a informative summary and background, like most Wikipedia articles, then transitions into the who, what, when, where, and why through each hunger strike (there were actually two). The article appears to be cited well, and makes very good use of its imagery, included strong photos and very informative graphs. It is a very specific article, with well-linked dates and mini-events. I believe the author(s) worked very hard to keep the article neutral (for something like this it is extremely difficult to keep unbiased).

Tessitjp (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Tyler Campbell

The featured article Ficus Aurea was an in depth look at the fig plant. It was a much more detailed and comprehensive look at the topic than the article on Energy Security, which was more of a brief overview of the subject. The Ficus article had appropriate headings and subheadings to all its sections that helped to organize the information in a such way that it made the information easy to navigate. The Energy Security article was not as thorough with its descriptions of topics and points. I was left wishing there was more in depth information provided on each of the subheadings for different types of energy. Each energy type was only followed with one to two sentences on each specific energy type. Possibly because the author might not have been a knowledgeable source, and was just trying to fill blank articles. Although, the article was cited well and included sources from a variety of mediums.

I agree with Calla that the Negawatt Power article is in need of expanding. The article doesn't follow the same structuring as most wikipedia articles. Its too short to be able to cover the article in a way that does the topic justice.

Campbets {talk}

Richard Harriott

The featured article 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens describes, in great detail, the massive eruption of the Mount St. Helens volcano in Washington state on May 18, 1980. Complete with a contents list 13 topics long, the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens article can tell you virtually anything you need to know about the event. In addition to the abundance of facts, there are plenty of pictures and diagrams to aid the understanding of the topic. Obviously, a great amount of work went into the creation of this article.

In great contrast, the Biomass briquettes article has very little information to it. The short writing on the topic contains the most basic of facts on the topic, and never goes into real detail. It lacks a structure entirely, seeing as there is only one unorganized section. To top it off, there are no references to any of the facts stated in the article, meaning there is no way to tell if they are accurate or not. It appears this article was thrown together in a matter of minutes and needs serious improvements.

Richharriott (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Abinezer Teklegiorgis

Today's featured article Ficus Aurea is an article that talks in depth about the tree Ficus Aurea. It discusses all aspects of this plant, ranging from how it was named to its physical features as well as the specific tree family. This article covers a wide range of topics that are related to this plant, which makes it more informational. It had a thoughtful organization that made it easy to read and comprehend the article. On the other hand, the article Carbon emissions reporting seemed more specific and narrow about its content. It discussed the approaches that are being taken by developed nations to tackle the problem of green house gases. Initially the article appears to be very short, and while reading the article I took from it very little about what other nations besides the UK are doing to tackle this problem. It gave only one example about the UK government and several times through the article it gave ambiguous references like 'they' which were unclear.

Carbon emissions reporting gave far less examples and was much shorter than Ficus Aurea. It seems like Carbon emissions reporting would need to be fluffed up with more information to make it more appealing and informational. The use of examples as to what other nations are doing to tackle this problem would give a better understanding to the actions being taken to address this problem. It clearly signifies that there was a lack of research behind this article.

teklegam (talk)

Mark Edwards

The article on the Hoover Dam talks about the background of the creation and uses of the dam. It covers the day to day operations of the dam, discussing things such as the electricity production, spill ways and tourism. The article also tells the story of the controversial naming of the dam, and the environmental impact the dam has on the ecosystem. The article was well though out and organized in a chronological order that relates to how information would be well received. While this was a well to do article the Nationalization of Oil Supplies was very short. The first thing that i notices as a box at the top of the article right under the title exclaiming that the following article may be inaccurate or unbalanced in viewpoints that were expressed. It tells us how a majority of oil is state held and hard to access because of hostility, while a very small proportion of oil is left available for privately owned international companies to operate with free rein. There is very little detail given about the issue at hand and there are a few sub articles that seem almost neglected and struggling to make a clear point. There was also very few references in the Nationalization of Oil Supplies article compared to the hefty list provided in the Hoover Dam article.

Ironman340 (talk)

Brent Snyder

Its kind of hard to compare with an article that isn't there but I can guess to what it would look like. The Oil Shale article that I found starts with defining the different aspects of the oil shale issue. In a cap and dividend article there would be a lot of technical languages and acronyms that would need to be defined in order to understand the general idea. Then I would agree that the rest of the article could be divided up into sections pertaining to the individual groups that are affected by cap and dividend. All of this is followed by the bibliography.

Snyde2bd (talk)