Talk:Natural resources of the Republic of Ireland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article contains material from the CIA World Factbook which, as a U.S. government publication, is in the public domain.

	Ireland Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Ireland on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the priority scale.

I had wondered why the article seemed wishy washy. Needs urgent revision. Ewanduffy 18:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup tag

This article is in serious need of review. The intro itself is informal in tone ("a fair amount of Zinc"), includes baffling and uncited assertions ("Their rocks are composed of minerals", "they are huge traders with Canada"), unneccesary emphasis/bolding ("new energy sources"), and a very unusual use of the English language ("many models have proceeded in the industry").

The body also includes weird emphases, incomprehensible tables (that have nothing to do with natural resources), pointless wiki linking, ("14,000"), and what can only be copy and pasted data from marginally related sources. In particular, the "economic data" (Including such strangely formed "facts" as: "Its Economic aid donor was ODA"?????) make the article all but impossible to read, and is all but unrelated to the topic.

In short, unless anyone has any better ideas, I am going to cull most of this pointless content, and return the article to a readable state that will - by definition - exclude this extraneous and blinding "data". Guliolopez (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. After a concerted effort to improve this article, I'm beginning to think that it's unrecoverable (and of very little/limited value).

The vast bulk of this article relates to lists of economic metrics with little to no attempt made to associate the economy of the Island to its natural resources. (The purported key topic)

Where the content *is* partially related to natural resources (for example in the "list of mining companies" and "list of government acts" sections), the text focuses on (respectively) the "sales blurb" of the mining company in question, and the dates of enactment & statutory powers of the government bodies. Again, there is little to no focus on HOW these companies or acts manage or leverage the island's natural resources. Or the impact of the utilisation/exploitation of those resources. Or (conversely) on the fortunes of those companies that manage them. Or (as noted) on the economy.

In short, I am not at all confident that there is any value to this article under the current title, and that any valuable text that there might be could easily (and more appropriately) be merged into the relevant Economy of Ireland and Ireland articles. (Under the "Energy" and "Geology" sections.)

I am further convinced by the fact that there is not one other article entitled "Natural resources of [country or territory]". (Save for this example - which is a bit better, but equally inaccessible).

Thoughts before nom for merge and delete? Guliolopez (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright:: I've done my best with this article: culling the unrelated clutter, attempting to organise into something logical, and removing all the pointless external links and weird internal links. In spite of this, many of the other noted problems still remain: unverified claims on (for example) energy production numbers, SPAM on mining companies, detail on "Natural Resources Acts" which have no context, etc. Frankly, without further cleanup, reorganisation or context, I remain unconvinced that this article is adding any value to the project. (It also remains decidedly unclear whether the titular subject includes NI or just ROI, or a combination of both jurisdictions). Anyway, I'm done with this for now, and will move onto something else. Guliolopez (talk) 02:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)