Talk:Merensky Reef

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JessicaDickson, Chanhasanna. Peer reviewers: Joedf, Thabisomodise.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Reef?
Is the Merensky Reef underwater? 69.61.233.82 (talk) 22:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Reef is an old mining term for gold bearing quartz veins. See: Vein (geology) or Quartz reef mining (altho that article needs work). Vsmith (talk) 22:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Merensky Reef. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090319121541/http://www.dme.gov.za/pdfs/minerals/D6%202007.pdf to http://www.dme.gov.za/pdfs/minerals/D6%202007.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100715090021/http://www.bullion.org.za/Education/Platinum.htm to http://www.bullion.org.za/Education/Platinum.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Thabiso's peer review
Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

All the information in the article is relevant and direct. The editors did an excellent job at presenting the information in simple, easily understandable language.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

The article is neutral, presenting the information in an unbiased manner.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

The viewpoints are well represented. The editor managed to separate the information into separate headers, which makes the article easy on the eye.

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

All the citations work properly. Going forward, I hope these citations will be added within the text to help the reader identify which information is from which source.

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

The facts aren't referenced properly. However, given that this is a draft, I guess it will be fixed going forward.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

The information presented is well up to date. This was confirmed by checking all the references.

Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

One interesting question about whether the Merensky Reef was underwater. This question could have been answered.

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

The article is not rated. This article is apart of WikiProject Geology, WikiProject Mining and WikiProject Rocks and Minerals.

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

This article does not extensively cover the mining of the ore in the Merensky Reef, which could be vital information for the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thabisomodise (talk • contribs) 01:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)