User:EmlyCole/Iron oxide copper gold ore deposits/Trentjohnson17 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

EmlyCole


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:EmlyCole/Iron oxide copper gold ore deposits


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Iron oxide copper gold ore deposits

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

You have added a lot of useful information to this article. Just make sure to include what you have added into the Lead appropriately. Some short information about the variability and controversy would make a good addition to introduce your topic, I think. Aside from that, the Lead is already pretty good since it doesn't have too much information, so I think those short mentions/additions to it would suffice. Maybe consider adding these gits to the third "paragraph", which is only a sentence as is, making it look a bit out of place.

Content

The content that has been drafted is very relevant to the subject. Prior to its addition there is actually very little information regarding the formation of these deposits (and the controversy surrounding it), the key features, and economics of the deposits.

The information is up to date. The only source from outside the last decade comes from 2001, and it focuses on the fact that the deposits are highly variable. I noticed that the citation is also associated with the statement that there is no complete model for deposit formation. Since this article is somewhat old, I would just definitely make sur that this is still true, maybe even find an additional reference from a more recent year to corroborate this.

As far as equity gaps go, this article doesn't much talk about that. I think in an article of this nature it can be difficult to make any relevant relation to that from. I noticed a lot of the deposit examples from the article are in South Africa and Australia. Maybe a section on the costs of these deposits on the Indigenous or impoverished people would make for a good equity and balanced view section while still sticking to the relevance of the article.

My only other suggestion would be to maybe expand the acronym REE. I was only sure of what it meant after I looked it up, so I imagine someone with less knowledge in the field might not even be sure after looking it up. Also, you mentioned the two proposed models in the factors of ore formation. It is possible that expanding on what these models entail would be an effective contribution too.

Tone and Balance

These contributions are very balanced and have a neutral tone. The subject matter has little room for bias, but you have done a good job covering any that might be called into question by specifically mentioning that there is controversy within the scientific/geography community as to how these deposits are formed. The controversy segment is well covered, specifically highlighting two different potential proposed models.

As I mentioned briefly earlier, an added section about having these deposits in otherwise poor or protected lands might go a long way in proving a balanced perspective for underrepresented positions. I don't know if it would be super relevant but it could be.

References

The references are up to date and all are accessible. All the references come from either government websites or peer reviewed journals, so they are reliably sourced and accurate. Every sentence that might need a citation either has one directly associated with it or has one in the sentences to follow. My only question here is are some areas over cited? I noticed one particular spot where citation 2 was used for a sentence and then used in the sentence immediately following it. Can the citation just be used after the latter sentence to cover both pieces of information? Well done here regardless.

Organization

I think the ideas flow well. The only proposed change I have is maybe moving the Factors of Ore Formation to just after Deposit Features or Ore Fluids Formation sections. The information presented here might be better suited there rather than after talking about economics.

The info is all concise and clear. There is little in the way of grammatical mistakes. My only real issue was with the very last sentence. I understand the sentence structure you were going for but I think the commas are in the wrong places, making it run on and spliced. I might change it to read: "There is still controversy to these origins but using tracing of fluid sources has opened exploration possibilities in recent years to large deposits in Australia, such as the Olympic Dam deposit. Using fluorites REE chemistry, the fluids in the formation of this deposit were identified."

Talk Page

The only post on the Talk page (that wasn't made by a bot) refers to the fact that diagrams and images are lacking along with references. It seems like the images critique was remedied, maybe another image showing a general framework/variability in structure would be fitting. The article as a whole seems a little low on references - 9 for the whole article is a bit low, especially considering most are in the Examples section, which itself is under cited.

I would recommend deleting the bot message after verifying what it had to say (it says it is okay to do that), and maybe make a post discussing your contributions since they are quite extensive.

Overall

These contributions are very well written, relevant, and add lots of value to this article. You have added a lot of stuff here, and most of it is critical for the understanding of the topic. The main strengths are that you covered scientific controversy/dispute around how these deposits are formed, economic logistics, and geographical features well - things that were not covered in depth prior to your contributions.

I would say the only weaknesses are a lack of expansion of ideas or new information presented. As I outlined above, going into a bit more depth for the what exactly the proposed models encompass and maybe even touch on what "economic quantities" entails.

Very well done.