User talk:Bddpaux/Drought conditions across much of US impacting fracking activity

• I live in East Texas and the oil and gas industry here is a MAJOR industry (of course). I have about 10 friends/acquaintances/relatives who work in that industry either here or in Northwest Louisiana, and obviously we've chatted alot about what fracking is all about. My late father-in-law loved saying that fracking is both good and bad. I also have a good local friend who's spent a tremendous amount of time in West Texas this summer; he and I recently discussed fracking and the industry as a whole relating to that area of the state. --Bddpaux (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

My friend (who, again, knows more about West Texas oil than I do) commented during one of our chats, "Fracking has opened up a whole new world for them in oil production, they can [drill] deeper now that they have it." --Bddpaux (talk) 03:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Approximately 4 months ago, I watched a brief news-magazine clip (I think it was on CBS, but I can't say for certain) where an oil and gas expert indicated that there are suspicions being voiced that fracking may be to blame for the rise in minor earthquakes occurring in the Midwest and Southern United States. --Bddpaux (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
• I haven't decided if I'm going to fold this source bit into the article yet, but it's an interesting read, so I'll put the link here for later consideration: http://www.care2.com/causes/ohio-fracking-wastewater-test-reveals-toxic-mess.html

--Bddpaux (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I decided to fold it in....may not pass review, but I gave it a go anyhoo. --Bddpaux (talk) 03:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1574661 [Not ready]

Revision 1574661 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 03:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: See below. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: What we want is something with a fresh focus. OR freshness comes in part from the very act of original publication; but if the focus is derived by synthesis, we need two sources and our publication doesn't carry its own freshness with it (the more central the OR, the more it helps with freshness). Although there is OR here, it appears to be peripheral rather than focal; and with a synthetic focus, we then need two sources and a specific, current event. Of the two synthesis sources, only one can pertain to a current event since the other one is old. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 1574661 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 03:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: See below. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: What we want is something with a fresh focus. OR freshness comes in part from the very act of original publication; but if the focus is derived by synthesis, we need two sources and our publication doesn't carry its own freshness with it (the more central the OR, the more it helps with freshness). Although there is OR here, it appears to be peripheral rather than focal; and with a synthetic focus, we then need two sources and a specific, current event. Of the two synthesis sources, only one can pertain to a current event since the other one is old. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.