User:Dan-is-gniess/Choose an Article

Article Selection
Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

Option 1

 * Article title
 * Zirconium Dioxide


 * Article Evaluation
 * The article's content is relevant to the topic. It is neutrally written with many citations and links to supporting information on each fact. There are no clear sides of biased information. The topic also has been written by more than one user. All the citations are reliable and work when clicking on them. There are a few comments on the talk page. Some users state the article is in good condition. A few users (before major edits were made) suggested a few changes and commented some negative facts from previous edits. All those problems have been solved or have been worked around.
 * There are a few ideas and additions I would suggest adding to the article. In the sources I attached, there is more present information on more human interactions and also more details such as how it is mined and where on the Earth (locations) it is current found and located. The science direct source also has a lot of information on the interactions it has with the environment and different gases. There should also be a lot more pictures and examples so the readers can get a visual representation of how its different states look. With a few more details and current (present information) research, the article can be edited to become a more effective method of imparting knowledge.


 * Sources
 * https://mineralseducationcoalition.org/elements/zirconium/
 * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021951785710391

Option 2

 * Article title
 * Flooded Mines


 * Article Evaluation
 * The article is not really relevant to the topic. It has a few points and examples but it does not thoroughly explain what flooded mines are. The article is only written by one user and it also has only two references all the way from 2008 and 2011. Every claim does not have a citation (a few do, but it is only mainly seen in the second paragraph). Also one of the citations is not accessable to read. There is no talk page available to be seen as no one has commented anything. On the main article itself, there's a section at the top stating" the article has multiple issues". It also states that there are insufficient citations and that the sources remain unclear. The article needs more citations in order to be verified.
 * The article needs some more sources and also details on impacts, how they are caused, and damage they do. The idea of "flooded mines" is explained, but there is no explanation on the issues it is. The topic is an issue and the article does not talk about the impacts and negative factors it has on the environmental spectrum.
 * The first source has a lot of information on issues and problems and how flooded mines occur. It also has a lot of additional information to add in the article about water pollution. The source also states that flooded mines need to be maintained and flushed out.
 * The second source has an example in China of a flooded mine and how they drilled holes to maintain and take care of it. This example can help the readers understand ways to manage and help the readers why it's crucial and important to solve flooded mine issues.
 * Adding a lot of information and more citations and sources will improve the article overall and create a better chance of it becoming verified.


 * Sources
 * https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paul_Younger3/publication/228607663_Time-scale_issues_in_the_remediation_of_pervasively-contaminated_groundwaters_at_abandoned_mine_sites/links/542e81520cf27e39fa9622d4/Time-scale-issues-in-the-remediation-of-pervasively-contaminated-groundwaters-at-abandoned-mine-sites.pdf
 * http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/503453/

Option 3

 * Article title
 * Drilling and Blasting


 * Article Evaluation
 * This article is a little better than the "flooded mines" article, but still contains many errors and problems for becoming verified. The article is relevant to the topic. It is written by more than one user and has a few more citations. There are still not enough sources and more citations must be used. It is written neutrally but there are sections (such as the procedure) where there are no sources or citations and the information written is biased. Each claim does not have a citation and the citations listed are not reliable. They are all dated in the 1900-2005 (except one from 2015). The information is not as accurate as in the present time, there are different new machines and industries being involved with drilling and blasting. In the talk page, there are a few comments stating some information provided is incorrect and that the main article should be merged with "rock blasting" as the main ideas are really similar. There are also users saying more information should be given on rock drills and jumbo drills.
 * In order to improve this article, a few sources must be researched and give facts and more details about how in (2020) drilling and mining is occurring compared to previous years. There is a good book "Drilling and blasting of rocks" from 2017 which has a lot of information that can be addd to improve the present facts of the article.
 * The second source is more of a general page also mentioning tunnel boring and cutting which are similar ways to breaking rocks. Updating and adding more information to this article and enhancing the citations and sources from previous paragraphs will help verify it.


 * Sources
 * AyalaCarcedo, FranciscoJavier. Drilling and blasting of rocks. Routledge, 2017.
 * https://www.onepetro.org/conference-paper/ISRM-10CONGRESS-2003-212

Option 4

 * Article title
 * Ore Shoot


 * Article Evaluation
 * This article has barely any content and it is not relevant to the topic. Even the main definition does not clearly describe what an "ore shoot" is. It is written neutrally and does not even have a source. The only source is ask.com which is very unreliable. There are only a few citations in the first sentence followed by none for the rest of the article. The citations are not reliable. The talk page does not include any comments. It only states that the article needs more citations and sources. There needs to be some pictures as well which can give the readers an idea of what an example of an ore shoot looks like.
 * The first source talks about ore shoots in more detail along with different mines and places ore shoots are located along with the different substances found.
 * The second link talks about how to target ore shoots and find precious minerals. It talks about how hard they are to find how the environments are usually hard for humans to work in.
 * With more information and facts about ore shoots and the impacts they have along with pictures and many examples, and a lot of citations and sources, the article can be on its way to be verified.


 * Sources
 * https://watermark.silverchair.com/606.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAArQwggKwBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggKhMIICnQIBADCCApYGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMDc_6tEnrs4qIGy_4AgEQgIICZ69H_jHLyKJ4N1pnaxR_0ncsX9FKjsKljlxPZhuX3r4CRKvuWwF-ng4j14gaWE4Mb-WTN1lNT9Cbuq_9gc1G3KOG-181Hmx8Ljn1XMn8788ZbMTSvUUT7IkMH9rUQ63KzEuJheEnrVVanuzCoq-pKJWYumGar42E-w8YRX5Bsk48O66YsV-c9Q47uZ1qDG9k4sN7t8Z7-BiGhR80ilWBTWEql2qEIvgBHDhlmGXscZVd2NbqgUvtU9TZSxn34KsftHZ9i3rCl9F9PCk08cleCoNDz1uaL4hZwy8KNsBaFtTRaXOZJDD1GG3V33Y3Mv8s0l0FnTe0bWFi3JC_7YVEvA0p9dzT1_x-d6dUd4PNZVFYMbjy-jewywCRdHojvnuV0CMKzkyON-aOpE01enThilFLs_d6aan-8uDGrmO75KnbxeRC6DN2tQy_-jj6nyoB1UJXXb55jGkwBvLfcTRwVYdOTCt5iS_LNs0jSfxrcQA6gkrNggaiyRYItMJ_JzK5bhhP7UiZRss9GJNtwui-Hhmwu7iXOy8j8-jna3yKhP6ENl7_pWEElEPXtFRYWTObYTUlKBZktbRCuMeZHx0MCZygHVVyJxD1Y5uvs1qmMW45dvX2u1FEQ2lzOg0jEYxCv1XTM2CpZHRHznMnVYkxkruF04-2myyYYrPLC3Tf0-Xd37FvjZXbbom996WLqTXvdsaOw9Om21R-TBPMbn0kMHeOXeoC-QNKX_WeGP9Mbx125-69QdqeFGUe-cJX1e1QvybzF-3H1AaON3oK_HEFXQeobnrDpDepu-L3nprAv-MDUdr5YKVR9A

https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/segweb/economicgeology/article-abstract/103/5/1029/128005

Option 5

 * Article title
 * Quarry


 * Article Evaluation
 * Out of the 5 options, this article is the best written and has the most relevant information to the topic. It is written neutrally, but it has a few sections without any sources. On the talk page, it is mentioned that the article does not have enough citations to be verified. From the citations mentioned, they all are reliable although they are all from the year 2012. A few more recent sources in our present time would help the article. One thing about this article that is very helpful is the "see more" list at the bottom which can help readers research similar components to the main idea of a quarry. Also every fact or idea includes a working citation.
 * Although the article seems all good, there are a few problems located in the talk page. A few users state that some of the information such as "open-pit quarry" can also be underground. There are also a few users stating the introduction is very vague with misleading information that is not properly sourced and incorrect.
 * A way to make the article better would be to research a current quarry study (such as source 1), and evaluate and expand the introduction of this article to make it more thorough and precise. Source 1 also expands on the problems with invasive species occurring on quarries. It also has a lot of information that can be added on managing quarries in general.
 * National geographic has a really good link where it has a lot of details and facts about quarries. Adding a lot of that information can increase the amount of citations which will help the article overall in having a strong understanding. With help from these two links, the main introduction can be worked on by adding more details and with citations clarifying any confusion or uncertainties. All these changes will help with verifying the topic quarry to become a proper and well-rounded article.


 * Sources

https://orbi.uliege.be/handle/2268/233244

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/quarry/