User talk:Beagel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives... 2008 2007 2006


Contents

[edit] High quality articles

Hi Beagel, These are among the best B class articles I could find in WP:Energy. I hope that the first five of these would eventually go to WP:GAN or WP:FAC. As for the last two, well, I think they are too list-like to succeed at GAN, and should be made A class articles. Your thoughts? Johnfos (talk) 06:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

In general, I agree with you. However, all these articles need some work to be done before nomination.
  • BTC pipeline needs still some cleanup and copyediting. It also misses some references and the lead should be properly expanded.
  • Energy policy of Brazil needs to be checked for updates. Also some subsections too short to follow the GAN criteria. Probably we should ask an assistance from the WP Brazil. From the energy policy by country series I would like to add also Energy policy of Russia, but it has similar problems.
  • The main problem with the Nord Stream is that this is a ongoing project and highly controversial one. Therefore there may be significant changes in the future or even again editwaring, so there may be problems with stability of the article. It needs also appropriate lead.
  • All articles spun-off from the main oil shale article last summer will hopefully be are GAs and FAs one day. Oil shale industry would be probably next GAN, but also the Oil shale geology after getting missing references. Unfortunately I am not able to find these and also requesting from the WP:Geology didn't help to solve this (although I get great assistance from these guys).
  • Renewable energy industry looks quite good. Probably the lead should be expanded. I propose to list it for the peer review before the nomination.
  • Nuclear energy policy should be split and the policies by country should be moved into separate article Nuclear energy policy by country. After that and some copyediting of the Nuclear energy policy it could be nominated for GAN (maybe also peer review would be good idea). The Nuclear energy policy by country should be dealt in the complex way together with the Nuclear power by country and the Nuclear power. I think that the Nuclear power by country should deal with the current nuclear facilities and capacities while Nuclear energy policy by country should take a care of the policy options and future plans of countries. All country specific information in the Nuclear power should be moved into these two articles.
  • Wind power in Texas looks quite good. I don't think it is too list-like. However, maybe it is better to list for the peer review first.
What you think, with nomination of which articles we should go forward? Beagel (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I can see that you are very methodical in your approach, which is good. But I have to admit I am a bit less so, and am certainly less inclined to use peer review. I've nominated Renewable energy industry at GAN and would suggest that you be bold and pick out one of the articles you've been working on and nominate it there too. Remember GA is all about decent articles, not perfect ones. And we could certainly do with some more GA articles for the Energy Portal... Johnfos (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably you are right about peer reviews. Usually you get better responses and more advices if you ask comments directly from other experienced editors. I will definitely go forward with some GANs when I have more time to be ready to make quick fixes if necessary during the GA procedure.Beagel (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oil shale geology

Hi Beagel - I did some quite minor copyedits to the article, it is really pretty good (I think) from that point of view. Feel free of course to change anything I did if it changes meaning. I will try to find a reference for that section you mentioned, but it probably won't be today. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oil shale industry

Hello B. - Won't be able to do much on this soon (am recovering from flu) but a few feeble suggestions - employment stats? Industrial safety? Growth projections? Couldn't find any GAs under "x industry". Thx for asking. Important topic, article is pretty good already. Hope to contribute soon. Best, Novickas (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello B. This may seem like a radical re-org idea, but am wondering about organizing this article by country - this valuable ref does it that way [1]. I could put a preliminary version on my sandbox, so you and others could review it. For whatever reason, it seemed easier to digest that way. Let me know what you think. Novickas (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] News item

Hi Beagel, Thought of you when I saw this news report... [2] Johnfos (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Can't believe these nuclear plans are serious, but the information about oil shale sounds logical. Because of the EU climate policy, Estonia has to reduce its emissions, which means reducing oil shale combustion. At the same time they have oil shale related knew-how, so it's logical they try to use this knowledge in countries with lower emission targets. I will check if there something to be added into oil shale articles. Beagel (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Barnstar for you !!!

The Original Barnstar
I award this barnstar to you for your tireless & dedicated work towards improving energy articles especially oil-shale and it's descendant articles. Keep up the good work !!! Gprince007 (talk) 12:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oil shale industry copyedit

I have completed the copyediting of Oil shale industry. However, i noticed on the talk page that u have not completed the LoCE request. Pls go to its talk page and copy the LoCE code and follow the procedure. After the procedure is complete, i'll sign in as copyed completed and only then the article will proceed for proofread. Pls complete the process at ur end....so that i can finish it and send it for proofreading. More info is available at WP:LOCE/R...As for the copyediting, it was hassle-free. I appreciate ur timely help and response in understanding the technical terms used in the article. As always, it was a pleasure workin with u !!!...some hidden notes have been left in the article....hope u will address those as well...thanx...Gprince007 (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you and sorry for missing to complete my request. I hope it's ok right now. Will look for how to address your notes.Beagel (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Energy Portals

Beagel, great thanks for your invitation for Energy Portals of Wikipedia! Ricky@36 (talk) 06:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] JACOS

I looked at that story and thought you did a pretty good job with it. I made a few more changes, but I also revised the oilsands history to include a reference to it. I think we should argue very strongly that it should stay in. Thanks for bringing it to me attention. 16:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oil Shale Articles

I'll have a look at these articles for you. I seem to have had a lot of requests in the last short while though so to be fair I'm going through them in the order they asked. JMiall₰ 21:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oil shale

Hi. A little late, but I've dropped off peer review comments at the talk page for Oil Shale. I'l do Oil Shale extraction process next. Hope they're helpful. I'll keep an eye on the talk page for a bit, if you want to respond there. In return, is there any chance you could have a look at Saruman (peer review Wikipedia:Peer_review/Saruman/archive1)? Ta. 4u1e (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations

Congrats, Beagel, on Oil shale industry being passed as a GA: good work! Johnfos (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {{bbl to t}}

I have upgraded {{bbl to t}}. One change I've made is to replace the precision-based rounding to a significant-figure based rounding. How does it look? Do you have any suggestions? JЇѦρ 08:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oil shale FAC

Hi B - that's a great ambition. I'm looking forward to helping as comments appear. You clearly have gotten support and help from some good editors, so its prospects are promising. Best, Novickas (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Beagal, thanks for the heads up about the FAC nomination, thats great news. not so busy these days so let me knwo if there is anything that needs doing or the like. Cheers Dexcel (talk) 08:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello B - maybe the remaining crude oil should be given as a range as well? Novickas (talk) 11:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a little bit complicated issue. As you see, there are figures about oil shale resources (potential shale oil in place) and oil reserves. The figure of remained oil reserves is quite exact. Oil reserves and oil shale resources are compared only to give some imagination about the amount of oil shale, but you can't directly compare reserves and resources. Conventional oil as recovery ratio (reserves divided oil in place) usually around 30-35%. It is not clear, what the ratio could be for different oil shales. So generally, there is no figures about the exact oil shale reserves, because the oil shale industry is not widely developed and the feasibility of most of deposits is not clear. So, I am not able to propose better solution right now. Beagel (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I see what you mean. Still, it's too bad; it would be nice to have some comparison as a strong hook in the lead. Maybe someone else at the Energy Portal will have an idea...Novickas (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! Novickas (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, I hope I can contribute something to the extraction/processing article too. Unfortunately, the oil-and-gas expert at work, who could explain anything in 3 minutes using ordinary language and a piece of paper - he left us. The industry apparently made him an offer he could not refuse. So it will be a little while, because now I have to learn on my own. Best wishes, Novickas (talk) 13:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Also - maybe a separate article called "Shale oil"? - it has various specific properties and could easily be stubbed from what we have already. This would involve changing the current redirect, tho. Novickas (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is a draft of shale oil: User:Novickas/sandbox, please feel free to edit it if you are inclined. Pour points, a complex issue. Novickas (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you think this would be a useful addition to the extraction article - the diagram on page 24 (Figure 13)[3]? It's public domain US government - could be captured and uploaded. Novickas (talk) 13:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Beagel, saw that Oil shale will be on the front page of wiki soon!! just thought i would pass on my congradulations to you for pushing it all the way to the fantastic article it is today. job well done Dexcel (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] thank spam

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral.

Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations.

Thank you again, VanTucky

[edit] Request re Klaipėda Geothermal Demonstration Plant

Hello B - could you please take a quick look at this, to see if there are any obvious errors, and put an Energy Portal tag on its talk page? Novickas (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC) PS: tons are not wlinked yet because it's not easy to find out whhich metric the World Bank uses. Novickas (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much - Novickas (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Future dam

Template:Future dam has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Kildor (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nord Stream

Why the names "North Transgas" and "North European Gas Pipeline" are described as "former names". These should be described as "Other names". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

North Transgas was predecessor of the Nord Stream project. Technically its the same project and the main partner (Gazprom is same). However, legally Nord Stream is not the same project and as of today, North Transgas project company was terminated. North European Gas Pipeline is the name, which is officially changed to Nord Stream (by the company). It is not officially in use anymore, however, in media it is used quite commonly.Beagel (talk) 10:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Southern Company Dispute

Beagel, given your long record of contributions to energy related articles, I would appreciate you reviewing and giving your opinion on the content discussion regarding campaign contributions on the Southern Company talk page. Thank you. 71.8.76.136 (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings

I was just trying to get the hang of the tagging of the WP Energy project template when i found an oil fields of australia (about 10% done mind you) category and was stumped - not sure whether in the scheme of things how project management is done - here at the oz stralia project we have class=cat inside the template turns off the importance - and collects all the cat and non article pages - while in the Indonesian project we have all the non art pages at class=NA, would it be possible to let me know what i need to do to fix the few ones that i did to get em right - for some weird reason i havent sorted out what you folks do - cheers SatuSuro 08:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks for that - It might have been me - but it would be good to work things out - thanks for the response SatuSuro 23:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your FA

The Original Barnstar
For working on an interesting topic that just hit the main page. I enjoyed the read. SGGH speak! 10:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trans-Siberian Pipeline

Excellent excellent work on Trans-Siberian Pipeline. I'm very happy with the work that you've done. I'm going to try to expand on the political aspects of the pipeline when I get a chance. Keep up the great work! - Eric (talk) 13:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Extraction

Hello, B - yes, I'd like to work on it. Looks to be another good candidate, thanks to your work.

First off question - could we summarize the major process inputs and outputs somewhere early on? (some of the major outputs are mentioned in the lead already). Something like "The processes all require a source of heat, electricity to operate the x, y, and z, and water to keep the components of the retort cool. Most commercial technologies burn the oil shale at the deposit to supply heat, supplemented by x or y, although some experimental methods...Electricity is... Water is usually withdrawn from on-site wells or reservoirs. The useful outputs include (shale oil, gas, etc). Other outputs include the various products of combustion, spent shale, char, and the water used in the process." Hope you agree that such a summary is helpful - one can then think back on it while reading the more detailed descriptions. In the meantime I can do wording copyedits. Best, Novickas (talk) 11:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:PNG LNG

Your opinion is requested: here. Thanks! ~ WikiDon (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)