Talk:Ridgeway Mine

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ridgeway Mine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 01:33, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey, I'll be reviewing this and should have comments posted here in a few days Kingsif (talk) 01:33, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Style

• Could take refs out of lead, attaching them to the claims in the main body
  • I prefer to err on the side of caution with citations :) -LG
• Not sure if gold and silver need to be wikilinked
• Lead probably just long enough for article length
  • Moved the bit about "only gold mine on the east coast" from the lead to history. I have also added a second paragraph to the lead that glosses some of the history. -LG
• might need a comma check throughout, some seem to be missing (as a recurring issue), obviously where this doesn't obscure meaning it's not awful (looks good otherwise)
  • I am rereading the MOS:COMMA and keeping an eye out for this but correct comma usage is definitely a weak point of mine. -LG
• Good for including both wikilinks and brief explanations of specialist terms and concepts needed for understanding of this article in some places; in other places there are no explanations so it means little to a non-specialist without going and reading a sentence worth of other articles
• Extraction and Geology section read like they are trying to ease down some scientific and business reports, so a minor rewrite for style may be needed
  • Took a stab at editing these. -LG
• History section good
• In Public opposition, I assume "railroaded through" means fast-tracked? "railroaded" seems like a slang or dialectical term
  • The meaning of railroaded as "forced through" doesn't even appear in Wiktionary so I've taken it out -LG
• Also in this sentence, including "decision-making process" seems redundant. What else would a decision be fast-tracked through?
  • Done -LG
• The phrase "there was one last chance" is emotive/storytelling. Keep it only on the facts, say, e.g. "this served as another chance, possibly the last,".
  • Done -LG
• The Reclamation section doesn't really establish what is being talked about (for a non-expert) until at least its third line; it should have some kind of contextualizing sentence explaining that when closed, the mine needs to be impounded by being flooded. Especially since Reclamation seems like it means reopening or something, not the land reclaiming the mine (I think? The section header is confusing.)
  • Reclamation section header confusing; this is a specialist term (that I just had to google), please also include a brief explanation of that and a wikilink to Mine reclamation at the start of the section
• In South Pit Lake subsection, what are the "several underwater features" that are good at stopping waves?
• Uses "Finally" a lot. Articles aren't lists of information, they're supposed to be good prose. And the prose seems fine until we get to the "Finally", so maybe just ditching this word would help; then you can also link the sentences and information more/in a better way.
  • Ditching the first...next...finally everywhere I see it. -LD
• The sentence about the pycnocline makes close to no sense if you haven't read that entire article and then googled it, then slowly re-read the sentence a few times.
• South Pit Lake subsection is a weak spot, really
  • I mostly rewrote this and took out a bunch of the academic details, cutting the paragraph in half and making it a bit more narrative. -LG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordgilman (talk • contribs) 06:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
• Needs work

Coverage

• Could have more coverage of history in lead.
• Extraction seems comprehensive, could be expanded/contextualized more because it kind of jumps right in to each part
• Geology seems fine
• Public opposition good
• In Accidents, how was Williams injured? The rest of the story wouldn't indicate that he was injured at all
  • I actually put in a FOIA to the federal MHSA to find this out. The articles did say he was injured and sent to the hospital, but didn't say why. The FOIA papers just said he was sent to the hospital to be treated for minor injuries (first aid). There is a box on the FOIAd paper that says EXACTLY how he was injured but it was redacted by the government to protect Williams' privacy. -LG
    • That's pretty interesting, we could work in that 1.minor first aid 2.story redacted. Kingsif (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
• Probably excessive detail on the accidents, especially when noticing the section is by far the longest of the article
  • Have you seen how popular true crime podcasts are lately? For a lot of people this is the most interesting part of the article -LG
    • Hmm, I'll look it over again, but also consider WP:DUE Kingsif (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
      • On second look there was a lot of trivial detail there (the percent grade of the hills at the mine?) and I've taken a lot of that out, improving the clarity of the writing but also shortening the section. -LG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordgilman (talk • contribs) 01:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
• Needs attention

Illustration

• Map in infobox and one photo - photo could be moved further down to give more coverage over article
• The way the quote at the top of the Public opposition subsection is formatted made me not really notice that there was a new subsection; perhaps move to the right
  • Done, looks better -LG
• Pass

Verifiability

• All sources look good, could get rid of the allcaps in some.
  • Caps gone -LG
• Most of Geology and Accident sections unreferenced; coins part of closure unreferenced
  • Geology comes from a single journal article which is cited as "geo". There's not going to be more than that on this single ore deposit. -LG
  • Also not sure what you mean by the Accident section being unreferenced. First, there are the MSHA citations to establish that the fatalities happened. Roosevelt's death has a bunch of news stories (and see the bit above about his FOIA). The facts in the Johnny Ray case come from an administrative court case (cited as "crushed_case"). This is a summary of the key points of the event and I believe it's an acceptable, neutral secondary source. The Sumpter case is also a federal government summary after their investigation of the event (cited as "forklift_case"). The seagull bit comes from a few newspaper articles. In the case of the government documents the MSHA is doing an investigation into the accident like any journalist would do and I would say it's just as acceptable as a neutral and comprehensive secondary source as a newspaper article. -LG
    • I'm referring to inline citations; there are certainly parts where there isn't a citation, and this makes it hard to find what source is being referenced. It would be great to have refs throughout. Kingsif (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
• Fail

Neutrality

• maybe don't use NIMBY if it's not in a quote with attribution; it's a derogatory term (and also likely inappropriate in this case - few people can have a gold mine in their area)
  • I see where you're coming from, I am OK with taking the NIMBY term out. What I didn't mention in the wiki article (and was mentioned in the newspaper article) was that locals opposed it because of dust, noise, traffic but also environmental concerns like air contamination from the cyanide and water contamination from cyanide leaks. The former are definitely NIMBY complaints but I can see how the latter aren't. Should I include a sentence or two on why they opposed the mine instead? -LG
    • Would be good to have that! Kingsif (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
      • New paragraph added. -LG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordgilman (talk • contribs) 00:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
• Fail

Stability

• Hasn't even been edited in nearly a year
• Pass

Copyright

• Check looks fine, GF on offline sources
• Commons image seems to be licensed correctly
• Pass

Overall

• on hold See comments above - some good work should get this up to scratch Kingsif (talk) 23:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Lordgilman: have you managed to take a look at this? Kingsif (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Lordgilman: - there has been a lot of progress made, and I don't want to fail this for inactivity, but it's been over a week without anything. I'll happily review again, but for now, there's been no activity at all. Looking better, ping me when you're back to re-nom! Kingsif (talk) 14:53, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Responding to feedback

I'm making edits at User:Lordgilman/Ridgeway_Mine Lordgilman (talk) 04:52, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Great, I'll take a look! Kingsif (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Looks pretty good now, would recommend a wikilink to tailings pond, and a copyedit for e.g. punctuation. @Lordgilman: Kingsif (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Lordgilman: Have you managed to read through, add refs, etc? It's been 5 days without activity. Kingsif (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)