Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1973 oil crisis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] 1973 oil crisis

Originally nominated as 1973 energy crisis

With the price of oil nearing $50 a barrel and fears that the price of oil could hurt economic growth next year [1], I've been finding myself explaining to a lot of younger people off Wiki the impact of a sudden oil shock (something far more overwhelming than any of the measured predictions for next year). With that in mind, in think that many readers these days will find this article an interesting one for the main page. Self-nom. 172 18:50, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Excellent writing for the most part, I scurried up a new image to accompany the lead section, I think it fits nicely. The one thing I am missing for sure is a references section, and maybe some external links/further reading. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 20:11, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Here's a start at expanding the notes and references section. [2] 172 22:17, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Mild object. Article is at 1973 energy crisis, but its not a crisis for solar energy, or nuclear energy, wind energy, etc... you see my point I think. Article should really be at 1973 gasoline crisis or 1973 oil crisis. Other than that good article (even if it is minus a few references). Alkivar 22:51, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree. I've been wanting to change it to 1973 world oil shock for a while. Any objections to me moving the page? 172 22:53, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Seems to me that 1973 oil crisis would be a better title, since "1973 world oil shock" gets about 90 google hits, and "1973 oil crisis" gets 6500. But I'm unfamiliar with the subject (born 11 years later), so I don't know how the event is generally referred to. Spangineer 23:51, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
      • As "the 1973 oil crisis"! Or even simply as "the oil crisis" (but that wouldn't be a good article name). I was 110 in 1973 and I've never even heard the term "oil shock". Please move it again.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 00:35, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The term "world oil shock" is very common in the academic literature, though. See the JSTOR search here [3]("Shock" is borrowed from a concept in social science and economics literature, e.g., endogenous shock and exogenous shock.) 172 03:03, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

JSTOR is subscription only. I'll just take your word for it.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 13:48, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • "Energy crisis" is by far the most common term. Also, while one can say that non-petrochemical energy sources didn't have a crisis, the world was more dependent on oil (and coal) then than any time since, so the oil crisis was an "energy" crisis. If the focus of the article were solely on the economic effects, then "oil shock" would be appropriate, since it was a "shock" to markets. To people who couldn't commute to work in their cars, it was a crisis. Geogre 20:07, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent article. Ambi 00:38, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Clear, relevant and well written, although there is still some awkward phrasing in places. [[User:GeorgeStepanek|George\^talk ]] 02:33, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object. This article is very US centric. What happened in the other countries that were boycotted, Western Europe and Japan? There is virtually no information about this. In the Netherlands, for example, 6 so-called "car-free Sundays" were imposed by the government. A minor issue is that it is common to list references in normal font size in a sepearate section (title References). Jeronimo 07:57, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • There is indeed more coverage on the U.S. than any other country, which is warranted considering how these events were underpinned by the declining power of the U.S. to control the international economy. However, coverage is not at all U.S.-centric. (Perhaps this impression is given off by the pictures, which are all U.S.-related. This can be easily corrected.) The impact on Japan, Western Europe, Canada, Australia, and other Western nations; the Eastern bloc; and the Third World is thoroughly presented. Please take another look... There is also a considerably greater amount of attention paid to oil producers in Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa than in most write-ups on this subject found in other reference materials. Indeed, the article starts and ends with a look at the internal conditions of oil producers in the Third World. 172

08:36, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • • Can you point out where the article specifically mentions a European nation? I can't. Take the "Response in the industrialized countries" (previously "..in the US"). First paragraph: all but the first sentence is about the US. Second paragraph: entirely about the US. Third paragraph: entirely about the US (not explicitly, but f.e. in the Netherlands, DST was only reintroduced after the 1977 crisis). Fourth: same. Fifth: mostly US ("Fortune 500"). Sixth: Western world. Seventh: Australia. Eighth: US again. So only two countries are specifically mentioned in this entire section, and Australia only briefly. Call it what you want, but I call this US-centric. And that is why I object.
• As a survivor, I do not recognise the term 'oil shock' and would prefer 'oil crisis', which was what we called it at the time. I fail to see how non-U.S. impact can be said to be covered equally; where are the 'European/African/Asian/Latin American/etc. responses' sections? The article is very US centric to my reading. So Object for now. Filiocht 08:45, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
• Object - 1973 oil crisis is the right place, but the article is still exceptionally US-centric. We had queues for oil in the UK too, you know. There was even an issue of petrol rationing coupons, although I don't think they were used ultimately . -- ALoan (Talk) 11:35, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)