Template:Did you know nominations/Peak oil

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Jolly Ω Janner 05:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Peak oil[edit]

(
)
  • ... that a 2014 thesis predicted peak oil would occur in 2035?

Improved to Good Article status by Blandx (talk). Nominated by Casliber (talk) at 13:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC).

  • Thanks for the nomination. However, there have been many predictions of a date for peak oil. Personally, I think to highlight one in particular might give a skewed impression. Could I suggest that another fact from the page be used instead? Thanks. Blandx (talk) 08:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Absolutely! Post below as ALT1 (and ALT2 etc.). I just threw one up for discusison Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • How about:
ALT1 ...that the peak of world oilfield discoveries occurred in 1965?
ALT2 ... that worldwide oil discoveries have been less than annual production since 1980?
Thanks again for the nomination. Blandx (talk) 08:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I think I like ALT1 more than ALT2, but will leave final decision up to reviewer. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


  • ALT3 ... that according a BP official, Peak oil has been predicted for 150 years, has never happened, and will stay this way?

ALT 3 Polentarion Talk 18:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

  • In regard to ALT3, I would suggest confining comments to factual statements originating from within the article. Blandx (talk) 08:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  • This article is a newly promoted GA and is new enough and long enough. As the article mentions, the word "discoveries" is ambiguous with regard to oilfields and I think ALT2 is interesting and safer, so I have struck the other hooks. Then I found the source for the hook was dead. (By the way, ALT1 is not supported by its source which does not mention 1965, only the 1960s.) The article is neutral and I have made no effort to check through the 215 references for close paraphrasing. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I just wanted you to know that I have updated the link supporting ALT2. It must have been moved by the source. Blandx (talk) 08:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
  • ALT2 is now supported and this nomination is good to go. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the green light - just for the records - ALT3 is based on a factual statement from an expert in the matter quoted within the article. Polentarion Talk 16:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I respect the fact that there are different points of view on this topic. However, ALT3 is not a factual statement. It is an opinion (a prediction) from one person. That person works for an oil company - hardly an independent point of view. Contributors to Wikipedia should take an neutral stance. Please be more unbiased in future contributions. Blandx (talk) 08:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Respecting facts would mean that we check the doomers prediction as of 2005 and acknowledge their failures. Rühl would have won any bet against Simmons, similar as in the Simmons–Tierney bet. Thats history, you try to present it as present. Polentarion Talk 13:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  • This is not an appropriate forum for a debate on this topic. This page is here to discuss nomination of a fact on the page for "Did you know...." Blandx (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Sure. You tried to avoid the hook based on Dr. Rühls assessment. I have good reason to defend that. Polentarion Talk 20:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I was about to promote this when I noticed that ALT2 does not include a link to the article. Please provide a new hook. sst✈(discuss) 07:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Done so. Polentarion Talk 08:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I have struck ALT2 because it has no bold link to the article, and ALT3 because of neutrality issues—DYK requires neutral hooks, and an article on peak oil using a hook saying there is no such thing is going to be problematic. There are any number of factual hooks that can be created from the article; indeed, it might be possible to get a hook similar to ALT2 with some rewording and the proper bold article link. Cas Liber, as nominator, I think this is your task. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Given that many readers might not know what it is, then maybe a more baseline educational hook would be okay, so:

will look for some other options. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Formatting ALT4 so it links to the article as required and doesn't capitalize "Peak", since the term is not capitalized in the article text. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • ALT5 ... that development of unconventional fossil fuel resources has significantly delayed the occurrence of peak oil?

...or something along these lines? EdChem (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Reviewer needed to check the new ALT4 and ALT5 hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Could not find clear article source for ALT5, also not clear that unconventional sources are included in the definition of "peak oil", namely "extraction of petroleum". ALT4 looks good, except that the reference cited does not match, it has no mention of the key word "rate", just "supplies". Is there a better reference for this basic term? Zeete (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I want to throw the cat among the pigeons here. I believe ALT2 to be incorrectly struck form the nominations. Could we please reconsider this decision? I'm not sure what was meant that there was no bold link to the article. The article says "Worldwide oil discoveries have been less than annual production since 1980," followed by the Energy Watch Group reference. That reference clearly says "Since about 1980, annual production exceeds annual new discoveries." Please download the document if you need to. The last time I looked at this page, I thought the issue was decided. I still think it would be an excellent choice for the nomination. Blandx (talk) 08:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Blandx, the formatting of a DYK hook requires that the nominated article is given a bold link, such as the "peak oil" seen in ALT4. ALT2 had no link to the article of any kind, so it was struck. If you want to reformulate it as a new ALT6 so it properly links to the article, by all means be my guest, but ALT2 should never have been approved without that required bold link. I'm not at all sure what part of the original ALT2, however accurate, could reasonably link to "peak oil"—what exactly are you proposing? BlueMoonset (talk) 09:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Apologies for my previous misunderstanding. I’d like to suggest:
  • ALT6 … that the peak of world oilfield discoveries occurred in the 1960s.
This is a variation of ALT1 with a bold link included. Blandx (talk) 02:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @Blandx and Casliber: Peak oil lede emphasizes production rate, not discoveries. Also reference Longwell pdf is no longer available. ALT4 would be okay if reference found. What do you think? Zeete (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I think it is a good suggestion. However, some might have objections that it's more of a concept at this stage than an historical fact. In support of ALT6, there is another reference (59) from C.J.Campbell stating a 1960s peak, and also the figure in the Discoveries section. If you still prefer to use another hook, please let me know. 58.110.39.194 (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • You're correct to say peak oil is about production. However, ALT6 is a factual point which highlights that these resources are finite. With regards to ALT4, if you need a reference then [Robert L. Hirsch (2005) PEAKING OF WORLD OIL PRODUCTION: IMPACTS, MITIGATION, & RISK MANAGEMENT] might be suitable. A link to a pdf is available on the page. Blandx (talk) 02:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @Blandx and Casliber: ALT4 would be okay with reference 1 replaced by a reference to Hirsch page 8. If that is acceptable, please update article and respond here. Zeete (talk) 13:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I have updated the reference; however, the template won't allow designation of a specific page. But, I don't think a reader would have a problem locating the relevant information. Blandx (talk) 07:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • ALT4 good to go. Zeete (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Peak_oil&oldid=878880579"