Talk:Coldstream copper mine/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: DimensionalFusion (talk · contribs) 17:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

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

At a cursory glance, the article does not have any glaring problems that would suggest a need to quickfail. Now time to perform a full review.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
 * The article is broadly understandable, as a person can easily understand what the nature of the article's subject is
 * b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Article complies with manual of style guidelines in lead section and such
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a. (reference section):
 * References contain enough information for me to find all of the sources referenced, all rotten URLs contain archives from original
 * b. (citations to reliable sources):
 * A check of the citations shows that they are reliable. Couldn't check source 2 as it is a book but it seems to be a credible source
 * c. (OR):
 * Article does not contain any original research
 * d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Article does not contain any obvious violations of copyright
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a. (major aspects):
 * The article mostly addresses the main aspects of the topic, however is sometimes too short in sections like environmental legacy, where some more explanation could be given Resolved, article addresses main aspects of the topic
 * b. (focused):
 * Article does not overly focus on any particular topic and does not go into unnecessary detail
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * No undue weight is given to any specific viewpoints
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * No edit warring as far as I can see in the history
 * 1) 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):
 * All images are appropriately sourced from wikimedia
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * The map (the only image) contains an appropriate caption
 * 1) Overall:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * No edit warring as far as I can see in the history
 * 1) 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):
 * All images are appropriately sourced from wikimedia
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * The map (the only image) contains an appropriate caption
 * 1) Overall:
 * The map (the only image) contains an appropriate caption
 * 1) Overall:
 * 1) Overall:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)
 * Pass/fail:

CT55555 reply
Thank you User:DimensionalFusion for the review and feedback.

Since your feedback I have:
 * 1) Expanded the environmental legacy section
 * 2) Moved corporate ownership history out of environmental and ownership section to expand the ownership section. I then renamed the legacy section to only focus on environmental section
 * 3) Found some 2022 activity history and added it

Overall, I have expanded the sections you mentioned, but I have not expanded them massively, as my searches indicate there is not much content to be found.

Therefore asking if you find these edits satisfactory to bring the article to GA standard? (talk) 12:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Maybe. I'm relatively new to the GA process, so I'll ask for a second opinion DimensionalFusion   (talk)  15:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Larataguera made similar suggestions regarding the environmental section in a similar recent review of a mining article. So giving them a ping in case they have an opinion. CT55555 (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi CT, thanks for the ping. I made some effort to find missing human/environmental impacts from the mine. I didn't really find anything. There's no mention in the EJAtlas. I found a brief mention about reclamation work in this conference paper. I haven't done a thorough review of this article, but there don't seem to be glaring omissions.I do have a question about the sentence I corrected: In 2015, the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario criticized the provisional government for the lack of financial assurances from the owner of the mine, EWL Management Limited, who were among a group of mine owners that had not put aside funds for environmental clean up fees, leaving the Government of Ontario at risk of covering any remediation costs.. Should that be the ? (I can't load that source, even from the archive). Also, since the remediation is complete, we should be able to say who paid for it. Was the Government of Ontario at risk of covering the costs, or did they pay for it? A sentence about the government's rehabilitation of the site could be appropriate in the lead.Other than that, everything seems accurate and reasonably complete as far as I can tell. Larataguera (talk) 02:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You are correct. It should have been the Provincial government. I've fixed it. It seems likely that the government paid for the clean up, but I could not find a source that says that, so I think we need to leave it as it stands. Thanks for your work. I've searched far and wide and if you have too, I think.
 * It's great to see the conference paper, but I don't think there is anything we should add from it.
 * Would you be willing to say that you consider this article strong enough to be classified as a good article? CT55555 (talk) 02:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's pretty good. If 's concerns are about depth of coverage and completeness, I would say that it seems complete, because I haven't found anything else to add. If I were reviewing this article I would probably ask if it were possible to find any images? Larataguera (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a good point. And I've searched for those in public domain, but there are none. CT55555 (talk) 03:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @DimensionalFusion now that @Larataguera has offered a second opinion, are you satisfied? Is there anything else I can do to advance this? CT55555 (talk) 15:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @CT55555 Yes, article looks good DimensionalFusion   (talk)  16:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I appreciate your logical review and clear recommendations. I wouldn't normally comment, but you said you were new to the process. To complete it you need to do the steps listed here WP:GAN/I CT55555 (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)