User:ProBuss/Gunnar Mine/Brbs4303 Peer Review

General info
ProBuss
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:ProBuss/Gunnar Mine
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Gunnar Mine

Lead
Good work on the article. The introductory sentence is direct and and provides a detailed explanation of the Gunnar Mine. A suggestion I have that may improve the lead is to add information about the new paragraph you have added called "Environmental Remediation". I think it could also be beneficial to state why the mine ceased operation in 1963 to give the reader a complete picture of the start and finish of this mining project. Overall, I think the lead does a good job discussing some important information that pertains to the Gunnar Mine without being too overly detailed.

Content
In terms of content, your paragraph that pertains to "Environmental Remediation" is a good addition as it is well known that mines can be devastating to surrounding environment and possess a large carbon footprint. This added section to the article provides a more modern approach to the topic by considering environmental improvements. As stated in the lead feedback, I think the explanation of the cease of operation could be its own heading with a detailed description as to why the mine no longer exists. In order to touch upon historically underrepresented populations, you could considering adding information about whether or not there were any surrounding populations that were affected by the operation and/or closure of the Gunnar Mine.

Tone and Balance
The tone throughout the article in consistently balanced and in no circumstances does it seem bias. None of the sections added persuade the reader in any direction. The added content is informative and does not provide any personal opinions regarding the Gunnar Mine.

Sources and References
Sources and references that were added are credible, peer reviewed sources. I would suggest adding sources to support your facts specifically when discussing specific projects and years. For example, when stating that the government expected the remediation project to be complete within 8 years or when stating that the government regulate the Gunnar Mine due to its large quantities of tailings and waste rock; I would suggest supporting these claims with peer reviewed sources to make your claims more credible.

Organization
In terms of the organization, the added section is well written in terms of clarity. I would make a couple spelling/grammar corrections such as capitalizing "mine" when it is referring to the "Gunnar Mine" as it is a proper noun. Furthermore, "cite" should be spelt "site" when referring to a location. In the second last sentence, "manor" should be spelt "manner" when referring to the way in which something is done.