This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Shale gas article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Material from Shale gas was split to Shale gas by country on 27 July 2011. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to
provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
|
There seems to be some overlapping with the the Hydraulic fracturing article, e.g. concerning the environmental sections. For example, the earthquakes sections probably is related to the specific method called hydraulic fracturing and not the shale gas as a type of natural gas. It would be probably necessary to look environmental sections in this article and in the hydraulic fracturing article in complex and decide, which information suits better in which article to avoid unnecessary duplication and mixing the subjects. Beagel ( talk) 19:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Really agree with these comments. Iztwoz ( talk) 18:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I've corrected or toned down the worst NPOV vios (that I saw), and added some balancing information. Article now seems reasonably balanced, imo. Note that I'm a geologist -- not an oil guy, but sympathetic to the industry. So editors with other viewpoints should check too. Do we still need the tag? You might ID what you see as problematic stuff.
Article is definitely a shining star compared to, forex, Hydraulic fracturing <G>. Now there's a can of worms.... -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 06:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Definitely. It is a heavily biased article. Unbelievable. It reads like someone from the industry has written it and will not accept any criticism. I haven't read such a biased article in a while on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.77.254.204 ( talk) 12:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Definitely still needed. Can someone add the "citation needed" and "unclear" on the following sentence in the introduction "Human and public health will both benefit from shale gas displacing coal burning.". It seems biased, suffers from the problem Moilleadóir pointed out and simply doesn't make sense.
Liberivore (
talk) 09:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I couldn't find out from this article the composition of shale gas. I am inclined to believe that it may be mainly methane, but is it something else as well? If so, what, and in what proportion? And those "Trillions of cubic feet" are, to me, quite incomprehensible/useless. What would it be in MTOE (Millions of tons of oil equivalent) or terajoules? I guess I could calculate it from the numbers of cubic feet given. Assuming it is all methane (which I, like I just said, don't know if it is) I'd calculate it from the molecular weight of methane and its heat of combustion. I would be happy to do that and put the result on this page if Wikipedia could reassure me that such a simple calculation wouldn't count as "original research" and as such be inadmissible. But first I'd need to know the composition of shale gas. Please, anyone? 83.251.97.118 ( talk) 15:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
This article has serious issues with neutrality and encyclopedic style. The lead section especially does an extremely poor job of explaining what exactly shale gas is, and seems to be biased towards proponents of it, citing mostly outdated sources as "recent" evidence of the abundance of shale gas, its positive influence on energy production, and its low climate impacts (all of which are claims I find suspect, especially with the evident disregard for encyclopedic style or proper research). I don't want to completely gut this because I am not qualified or able to rewrite the lead section in an academically comprehensive way, but I beg someone with more geology or energy knowledge to please fix this ASAP. Toadspike ( talk) 19:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)