Talk:Chevron Corporation/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Wasted Time R (talk · contribs) 11:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun reviewing this nomination. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Comments are given here on some, but not all, of these criteria. There are several aspects of the article I did not evaluate, given the level of other issues encountered.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
See below for a major concern on structure
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
See below for a few comments on reference formatting and a major concern on quality of sources
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
See below for the biggest problem with the article
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
The structural concern has implications for neutrality as well
It is stable.
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):
See below for additional images that can be used
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
It's a difficult task to write at a GA level about any company - the acquisitions, the mergers, the sell-offs, the name changes, the direction changes, it can be a mess. And it is truly a mammoth task to write about a company as large, as long-lived, and as still going as this one. Unfortunately this article has a lot of work that would still need to be done to bring it to a GA level.

Re 1b, 4:

There is a major structural problem with the "Controversies" section, which is that the subarticle isn't adequately summarized in the main article section. That's especially jarring given that the subject is given the longest paragraph in the lede.

There's also a major readership problem, in that nobody sees the subarticle. Take a look at these statistics over the last three months: Chevron Corporation is averaging over 1,100 views a day, while Criticism of Chevron is averaging less than 20. That's a huge disparity.

I'm not saying it was the intention of the split, but sending this material off to an article that no one sees raises questions about the neutrality of the approach.

There are several different options for WP:CRIT, and people will differ in what they think is the best approach. In my view, the material in question should be brought back into the main article, made more concise, and integrated into the article narratives rather than being its own section. The main article could have sections such as "Environmental pollution and cleanup", "Climate change and alternative energy", and "Political involvement". These sections would integrate all the material relevant to those topics, whether it was good bad or indifferent regarding Chevron.

This article is only 4,840 words, which isn't that much in the scheme of things. While Criticism of Chevron is 3,229 words, much of it is redundant. There are already substantial articles on Lago Agrio oil field, on Steven Donziger, on Cobasys. There's no need for this article to rehash the details and the back-and-forth on those matters.

Re 2a:

A few cites don't give a publisher, such as fns 3, 29, 30, 72, 73, 174.

A few online cites don't give either a published or access date, such as fns 1, 3, 72, 73.

Giving book page ranges as "pp. 61–", "pp. 33–", etc. is non-standard; specific page numbers or ranges should be given instead.

Historical Dictionary of the Petroleum Industry and The A to Z of the Petroleum Industry seem to be the exact same book, under two different titles (first one hardcover, second one softcover). I see library listings out there for both of them, but whichever you have access to, you should pick that one and use it in all cites. And in your base cite for it you can indicate it's also published under the other title.

Re 2b:

Most of the article's sources are news stories covering immediate events; news pieces that are recycled press releases; and announcements from Chevron itself. While all of those are usable for certain things, they aren't the best sources for an article like this that is trying to convey the broad sweep of the company's history and operations and role in the world. Better are books, magazine articles, and news stories that feature in-depth analysis.

In particular, more use can be made of the books that are given as sources. A couple of them have multi-page passages that give good historical material on Standard Oil of California and Chevron. Others shed some light on the political and environmental involvements of Chevron. If you can't see all the pages you need in Google Books or Amazon Inside for a particular book, then try getting it from a physical library. Even easier, note that The Politics of the Global Oil Industry: An Introduction is fully available at OpenLibrary here, and The Corporate Planet: Ecology and Politics in the Age of Globalization is fully available at OpenLibrary here.

Then a good way to find additional book and analysis sources is to look in the endnotes and bibliographies of these books, and build out your reading from there.

Re 3a:

This article is responsible for the full history of Standard Oil Company of California, since that is a redirect to here. Similarly, this article is responsible for the full history of Pacific Coast Oil Company, since that is also a redirect to here. But the article is not meeting this responsibility.

The "History" section has, by my rough count, 3 paragraphs on the Pacific Coast Oil era covering 27 years, 3 paragraphs on the Standard Oil of California era covering 78 years, 5 paragraphs on the "pre-Wikipedia" (before 2004) Chevron era covering 18 years, and 15 paragraphs on the Wikipedia (2004 to now) Chevron era covering 19 years. This is very out of balance – not nearly enough on the Socal years and way too much and on the recent Chevron years. Indeed, the whole history of Socal is buried under a section header called "Formation of the Chevron name" – that's really misguided.

The "Logo evolution" section is okay, but the "Advertising and 'Human Energy'" section only discussed one ad campaign from 2007. What about earlier ads? What kind of advertisements did Standard Oil and California run and what slogans did they have?

The "Operations" section has 24 paragraphs, all pretty much dealing with 2010 forward. I get that a section like this will mostly focus on what's happening now, but some note of prior operations would be useful.

The "Finances" section has a nice table of revenue/income/staffing levels ... that only goes back to 2005. It should go back to the early days of the predecessor companies, ideally.

The "Headquarters and Offices" section is dominated by 2002 and on, with one incomplete mention of San Francisco before then. What about before 555 Market Street?

The "Political contributions" section mentions only 2010 and later. I'm pretty sure they've been sending money to politicians a lot longer than that!

The "Board of directors" section doesn't mention any CEOs prior to 2010.

All of this is WP:RECENTISM in action. And clearly the WP:20YEARTEST is not being followed.

Additional problems from recentism can be seen in various places where something was added to the article at the time but never followed up on. Such as its status in Kentucky is unclear after Chevron withdrew its brand from retail sales from Kentucky in July 2010.[27][28] Such as In February 2012, Chevron notified the Bureau of Land Management and the Department of Reclamation, Mining and Safety that it intends to divest this lease.[56] Such as Production is expected in 2015 if a decision is made to produce from the field.

There are discussions of two contemplated mergers in 2019 and 2020 that did not happen ... but I'm sure there were contemplated mergers in earlier decades as well. There are isolated facts like For the fiscal year 2011, Chevron reported earnings of US$26.9 billion, with an annual revenue of US$257.3 billion, an increase of 23.3% over the previous fiscal cycle., with no indication of what makes 2011 special. We have things like In October 2015, Chevron announced that it is cutting up to 7,000 jobs, or 11 percent of its workforce.[93] ... yet no mention of job cuts in earlier decades. The article doesn't even mention the Great Depression.

Re 3b:

"Chevron and computer games" - I'm skeptical this even needs to be here. It seems pretty minor compared to everything else and SimRefinery already has an article of its own. Maybe add it to Template:Chevron Corporation?

Re 6b:

The images are almost all of gas stations and office buildings. How about adding a refinery, such as Image:Chevron El Segundo refinery, 2007.jpg? How about adding an oil tanker, such as Image:Chevron Oil Tanker.jpg? And the Image:013 5383 Protest Occupy Chevron Żurawlów.JPG to visually convey the fact that it's a controversial company. And some photos of earlier headquarters buildings. And Image:G-21_US_Fish_Wildlife_Service_at_Shageluk_1950.jpg to illustrate that the Chevron name was used as a retail product brand in earlier years.

Wasted Time R (talk) 13:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]