User:Mbrookemac/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Mining

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article to evaluate as it relates to environmental science through the extraction of resources. The previous week's content included a topic on tailings and the environmental impact that different disasters have had on the freshwater ecosystem in past years and it peaked my interest to learn more. Beyond that, I wanted to more about the different metals that are mined as well as the impacts on humans around and working in the mines.

Evaluate the article
Lead section:

The lead section has a clear description of what mining is, however it is missing an outline of the topics in the article. Most topics from the lead section are developed further into the article except for the assertion that most countries have passed mining regulations (some expansion for certain countries but no evidence that most have) and that governments who have passed mining regulations often overlook violations due to their economic status. The length of the lead is not too long however some of the topics could receive a more clear overview and some topics like the history of mining (a significant section of the article) are not mentioned at all.

Content:

The article contains no information that is irrelevant with some up-to-date sources (some academic, many non-academic) from as recent as 2020. Many articles are becoming outdated (some range from the 1960s to the 1990s) and may need to be supported by newer publications. Most content gaps in the article are minor for example, what makes up tailings and how it affects water quality and biodiversity.

Tone and Balance:

The article is fairly neutral, it gives general information on mining and the effects of it, both positive- like economic abilities for certain communities and negative- like the potential safety violations. The article does a good job to not imply that you should agree with or oppose mining. There is a good focus on the topics presented but some information could be altered within the sections like environmental effects and indigenous peoples to expand on developing ideas and as mentioned before, explain the effects that mining is having on freshwater systems.

Sources and References:

Not all facts in the article are backed up by citations. The sources are not thorough, some are dead links and some are outdated (two are provided from 1965). The sources do not fully reflect the available information, a quick search of the history of mining on google scholar provides a number of unused, and helpful (much of the information in this section is uncited) articles with recent publications ranging from 2012-2021 within the first page alone. Some areas like the section on indigenous peoples is heavily supported by non-academic material. There are academic sources available to support the ideas presented by the news articles they use. For example, Dobinson, Toni, Graeme Gower, and Tania Fahey-Palma. "Anthropogenic impacts of mining on indigenous peoples in Western Australia: Divergent values." Ethnicities (2023): 14687968231219582. could be used to explain the relationship Australian Aboriginal people have with and their experiences with mining.

Organization and Writing Quality:

The sectioning of the article allows for clear reading however I would put environmental effects immediately after the section on human rights to group the two main areas impacted by mining highlighted in the article. The article is overall readable, with few statements that require restructuring. The few places that could benefit from restructuring are still clear enough to read. For example (a comment I also added to the talk page), "(As time goes on and richer deposits are exhausted – and technology improves – this number is going down to .5 g and less.)" from the lead section is not totally clear so in the talk page I suggested a change to "When richer, better quality deposits are exhausted, new technology is needed to exact less ore from worse quality deposits. " The original is unclear on how less ore is mined when technology is improving and there is no citation for their reference to 0.5g. Some sentences may be edited for clarity however they do not effect the reader's ability to understand the topic.

Images and Media:

The images are well captioned however diagrams would benefit from a figure caption describing the diagram rather than just titling it. The images are appropriate and enhance the readers understanding and ability to visualize the information. They are also added in a visually appealing way that does not distract from the article itself. All the images except one are cited with names and proper information including the public domain images.

Talk Page Discussion:

There are comments about potential edits to provide clarity, add information, edit existing information, and merging overlapping topics however there is no "discussion" with back-and-forth commenting. The article has a B rating which is good for people who want a general overview but not for people searching in-depth or fully academic information. The mining article is part of 5 Wikiprojects: Mining, Geology, Technology, Environment, and Occupational Safety and Health.

Overall Impressions:

The article is a good overview for anyone looking to find elementary information on mining. The high number of non-academic, out of date sources, and deleted links makes the article under-representative of the topic but provides a solid base to find key concepts to learn more about. The article is a good place to look for topics and keywords that you can use to find more information elsewhere. The article's strengths are the topics it covers (there are not many topics that are omitted from the article that could be added). If sources are updated and added to areas that are lacking then the quality of the article would be greatly increased. In my opinion the article is underdeveloped but edits are still happening and are helping improve the article.

01-26-2024