2603:3000:d02:86f0:3040:3d65:b304:4afe (talk) →Loar subseri e: new section Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
2603:3000:d02:86f0:3040:3d65:b304:4afe (talk) →A diversive sublimination man: new section Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
Line 101: | Line 101: | ||
I need to make a f****** file a complaint against Pablo a sanchez Polly sanchez in Houston Texas be decided to go ahead and beat the s*** out of his brother and me because his dad was having a hard time so he decided to kick my a** and I'm filing charges against him and if I don't hear from you people I'm gonna get an attorney to f****** Sue your a** is too [[Special:Contributions/2603:3000:D02:86F0:3040:3D65:B304:4AFE|2603:3000:D02:86F0:3040:3D65:B304:4AFE]] ([[User talk:2603:3000:D02:86F0:3040:3D65:B304:4AFE|talk]]) 05:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC) |
I need to make a f****** file a complaint against Pablo a sanchez Polly sanchez in Houston Texas be decided to go ahead and beat the s*** out of his brother and me because his dad was having a hard time so he decided to kick my a** and I'm filing charges against him and if I don't hear from you people I'm gonna get an attorney to f****** Sue your a** is too [[Special:Contributions/2603:3000:D02:86F0:3040:3D65:B304:4AFE|2603:3000:D02:86F0:3040:3D65:B304:4AFE]] ([[User talk:2603:3000:D02:86F0:3040:3D65:B304:4AFE|talk]]) 05:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC) |
||
== A diversive sublimination man == |
|||
You know what if you want to hide your f****** s*** in the gonna be wiping a lot better man because I am going to f*** y** people [[Special:Contributions/2603:3000:D02:86F0:3040:3D65:B304:4AFE|2603:3000:D02:86F0:3040:3D65:B304:4AFE]] ([[User talk:2603:3000:D02:86F0:3040:3D65:B304:4AFE|talk]]) 05:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:52, 27 January 2023
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Merging Proposal
Let's get straight to it: At 182KB, ExxonMobil's article is too long.
I think that the history section is the one which should be separated and given its own article. The history of the company listed in this article prior to the 1999 merger is 38KB. Additionally, even though the 1999 agreement was effectively a merger, technically speaking, Exxon bought Mobil and renamed itself to ExxonMobil, similar to the T-Mobile US and Sprint merger except that T-Mobile US didn't change its name.
What I'm suggesting ultimately is that the article ExxonMobil have its history section significantly trimmed down and pasted into a new article, which is to be named History of ExxonMobil (currently a redirect to ExxonMobil). After the merger takes place, the page Exxon will redirect to ExxonMobil. While I won't combine it with my proposal, I would also be open to merging Mobil into History of ExxonMobil if enough editors agree, but initially I would oppose it due to Mobil being a brand name used outside the US not just for fuel stations but also Mobil 1 motor oil and the sponsorships aligned with it. Exxon would be a perfect article to repurpose since the brand is only used in the United States for gas stations, and as mentioned previously, the company today known as ExxonMobil previously was Exxon prior to the merger.
InvadingInvader (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- Alright...I'm going to be bold and move the history stuff from this article, along with Exxon and Mobil, to History of ExxonMobil. I'd still like to wait for consensus on converting Exxon to a redirect. InvadingInvader (talk) 04:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- Welp, after no response, I'm going to go ahead with the merger...editors from an earlier RFC (Talk:Exxon#Possible_Merger?) seem to be on board. InvadingInvader (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Some ideas for GA review
Hello InvadingInvader, I noticed that you nominated this article for GA review. I'm not prepared to do a complete review at this time (partly because I've never done one and would have to get familiar with the process), but I'd like to offer these notes.
I think there's insufficient weight on controversies. Consider that there's almost equal space for the section on "Low Carbon Solutions" as there is for "Controversies", even though Exxon controversies are the subject of several other articles in themselves. Surely Exxon's role in environmental conflicts around the world is more significant than its role as a world leader in carbon capture and storage
(Can that latter claim be justified at all outside of a company press release?) I would recommend careful expansion of the controversy section in summary style to include subsections on the most notable conflicts (as evidenced by those conflicts having their own articles or reference to those conflicts in academic journals), and increased placement of that information in the lead. I think the lead is otherwise too long, and some other information in the lead should be removed to make room for this.
- Prominently missing conflicts are the company's activities in Indonesia and in Cancer alley. Maybe also this. Exxon is also active in the Niger Delta. There's really quite a lot, and it shouldn't be shuttled off to about 200 words at the very bottom of the article.
I'm open to doing a full GA review, depending on your thoughts here and what I learn about that process. Thanks!Larataguera (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for telling…the problem with controversies however was that the section was simply too big; I recently split it into Criticism of ExxonMobil. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I get that. I think there are two things that would fix this. 1) judiciously introduce concise summaries of the conflicts back into the controversy section (with most detail remaining in the Criticism of ExxonMobil article, and 2) dedicate space in the lead proportionate to the material about controversy in the other article (as if it were part of the article, which it once was). Larataguera (talk) 23:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- Got it. I can't get to it immediately, but I'll see what I can do over time. Thank you for your comments! InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Sounds good. I see you started on it. Ping me when you think it's ready, and I'll open a GA review. Larataguera (talk) 00:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- Do you think that the controversy section is at a viable size as of right now, or are there certain other controversies you think should belong? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for checking. The following notable conflicts are still missing:
- There should be some mention of Cancer alley. This is an extremely long-running conflict, as the Baton Rouge Refinery has been in operation over 100 years. Might be best to put this in the context of pollution from ExxonMobil's refineries in general, so that the summary isn't too long. here are some relevant sources. There are lots more, including scholarly literature on cancer alley.
- There's some difficulty here, because the Criticism of ExxonMobil doesn't even mention Cancer alley, (although it does list some incidents that took place there). I think in order to get this article to GA, we'd have to get the criticism article to B. I currently rate it a C.
- There should be some mention of Exxon's presence in the Niger Delta and related Environmental issues in the Niger Delta. We do have ExxonMobil Nigeria, but it's a stub. The 2010 ExxonMobil oil spill is not listed in the criticism article. It may or may not be directly linked here, but Exxon's presence in Nigeria should be mentioned, as well as the controversy around their private security forces and whether these forces are state sanctioned. this is one source. here are a few more.[1]. This is another extremely long-running and notable conflict that we can't leave out of a GA.
- PNG Gas is a slightly more recent conflict. That article has a fairly long section on 'Conflicts with local communities'. I haven't reviewed it. It may deserve a brief reference here, but should certainly be included at criticism.
- All for now. There are some other issues, but I will note them at the criticism article and we can decide whether they warrant mention here. Thanks for your work so far! Larataguera (talk) 15:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- Hey there! Did some updates and further reading on your suggestions
- 1. Cancer Alley has since been included.
- 2. Focusing on the 2010 Spill, I'm having doubts about individual notability for the main ExxonMobil article. That spill only released 232 barrels of oil, a figure dwarfed by the 257,000 barrels spilled by the Valdez. Furthermore, per Treehugger, Valdez is only the 14th largest oil spill in world history (though by far Exxon's largest and most notable single incident). I think that the 2010 spill doesn't meet the notability standard for inclusion on this individual article, though it does definitely merit inclusion on Criticism of ExxonMobil.
- Thanks,
- InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- That's great. I agree the 2010 spill may not warrant specific mention in this article, but I do think there should be some mention of Exxon's presence in the Niger Delta, with possibly a link to Environmental issues in the Niger Delta and definitely a link to ExxonMobil Nigeria, which needs expansion. I may be able to work on that.
- I did expand Arun gas field by the way, which is where the Aceh human rights violations occurred. It's up for DYK review right now. Larataguera (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for checking. The following notable conflicts are still missing:
- Do you think that the controversy section is at a viable size as of right now, or are there certain other controversies you think should belong? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- Sounds good. I see you started on it. Ping me when you think it's ready, and I'll open a GA review. Larataguera (talk) 00:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- Got it. I can't get to it immediately, but I'll see what I can do over time. Thank you for your comments! InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I get that. I think there are two things that would fix this. 1) judiciously introduce concise summaries of the conflicts back into the controversy section (with most detail remaining in the Criticism of ExxonMobil article, and 2) dedicate space in the lead proportionate to the material about controversy in the other article (as if it were part of the article, which it once was). Larataguera (talk) 23:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
GA Review
- This review is transcluded from Talk:ExxonMobil/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Larataguera (talk · contribs) 15:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
InvadingInvader has been responding to some of my feedback about this article at Talk:ExxonMobil, so it seems appropriate to open this review and move further discussion here. Thanks InvadingInvader for your work so far! This is my first attempt at a GA review, so bear with me as I figure it out. Larataguera (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- InvadingInvader Here's your initial review. Larataguera (talk) 06:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- I am failing this review, because there is insufficient information on Wikipedia about Exxon's global operations to write a complete article. In particular, there is limited information about operations in Papua New Guinea and in Nigeria. A good article should have summaries of these operations, not just a single link to articles that don't contain complete information. These regions are not the only areas that are incomplete, as Exxon has operations all around the globe. Additionally, I am not sure if sufficient material has been summarised from Criticism of ExxonMobil to create a balanced POV (especially in the lead) or that the criticism article is itself complete enough to ensure that relevant issues can be identified for placement in the main article. While InvadingInvader has done a lot of work on this, the remaining gaps are quite large and unlikely to be filled soon.Larataguera (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- The article could use some copy-editing. The lead will have to be revisited at the end to ensure proper summary of controversy section.
- There is a lot of redundancy between the "downstream" and "retail" sections. Could these be merged into one section? Is the loyalty program notable enough to include here?
- a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- Everything looks good here so far. I will be double-checking for copyvio, and verifying sources over the next few days
- There is some cut-and-paste beginning with
hard-to-decarbonize sectors...
from this source in the 'Low Carbon Solutions' section that needs to be rephrased
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- The section on controversy needs expansion as we've discussed at Talk:Criticism of ExxonMobil
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Is the table of largest oil companies relevant for this article, since ExxonMobil is only one entry in a rather large table? Some other pictures would be good. Maybe a refinery and something to represent both upstream and retail. All we have is the corporate office.
- In the section about upstream activities, I wonder if we could have a map of Exxon's global holdings? Or if not, would a table read better than the list of acreage in each country?
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- I'm willing to copy-edit once everything is done if that's appropriate. Otherwise, maybe we can get another editor to go over it.
- Pass/Fail:
- article fails. See note at top Larataguera (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Exxon Valdez Spill
Occurred in 1989 NOT in 1979… 2600:100D:B04F:CF23:8D84:F7D:9999:812A (talk) 05:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Fixed, thanks. Larataguera (talk) 12:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Management
I need to file a complaint because Pablo a sanchez over there in Houston Texas you attacked me in my mom and dad's house and I have filed charges against him and I need you people to know what kind of person he is call me at 5:05 to 6 3 42 61 and I will update you on your employee because I'm gonna Sue you and him 2603:3000:D02:86F0:3040:3D65:B304:4AFE (talk) 05:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Loar subseri e
I need to make a f****** file a complaint against Pablo a sanchez Polly sanchez in Houston Texas be decided to go ahead and beat the s*** out of his brother and me because his dad was having a hard time so he decided to kick my a** and I'm filing charges against him and if I don't hear from you people I'm gonna get an attorney to f****** Sue your a** is too 2603:3000:D02:86F0:3040:3D65:B304:4AFE (talk) 05:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
A diversive sublimination man
You know what if you want to hide your f****** s*** in the gonna be wiping a lot better man because I am going to f*** y** people 2603:3000:D02:86F0:3040:3D65:B304:4AFE (talk) 05:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)