User:User5843/Copper extraction/RockySurfaces Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Peer reviewing User5843's article on Copper Extraction, which states it is an older method of extraction focused on historical mining.


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * A sandbox draft of the article to change or expand upon is found at the link presented at the beginning.
 * Bibliography is found at this link.


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Current version of the article is located at the Copper extraction page, as of this peer review draft creation.

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

There have been no changes to the lead section to reflect possible updates to the peer added content.
 * Lead

The current article lead is a few sentences describing what extraction is, processes and changing of methods used by location. It does not fully cover what the article is about, which could be expanded upon to describe key information from section headlines as concise sentences.

All information (the little bit of it) is present at some point in the article body, but could use more detail and length to better inform audiences that wander onto this page about various methods of copper extraction. With such a short and uninformative lead a person may not get the wanted information at a glimpse. The user has expanded upon the section "Specialized Ores" by adding in sources to sentences that were missing, where appropriate using scientific articles to support the claims made. Sentences that should not be present, or that seem less reputational are removed in the draft and replaced by up-to-date claims from published papers with relevant information to the section heading.
 * Content

Missing content does not present itself without further knowledge on the subject from an academic background. Each sentence changed or added is relevant to the overall section.

Significant equity gaps do not seem to be present in this article about extraction of copper ore. Switching from what is currently present in the original article to the draft article that expands and changes the section "Specialized ores", the added content appears to support a neutral tone. In all sentences of the draft, the claims made do not appear to have influence of a heavy bias, rather try to state the facts found from the researchers of the papers.
 * Tone and Balance

The user may wish to keep some of the original article intact - unless the information is found to be outdated - to keep more viewpoints available for comparison purposes. There is no over- or under- focus on one particular method of ore extraction. As such, the reader should not be motivated to drift one way over the other from what was there previously and what will be there in future.
 * Sources and References

At the end of each new piece of information is a source relating to the claim made in that sentence. All sources presented in the bibliography sandbox and draft article are from peer-reviewed and reliable journals.

Content from source #2 is accurate to what is described in the draft article, stating both ferrous and ferric iron assist in the oxidation process of leaching. Information about the leaching process in source #5 is also stated in the draft article, where flotation and leaching play a role in extracting more ore from low grade bodies or dumps. Use of sulfuric acid to further extract ore minerals (Cu) from ores is mention in the draft as source #8, with the paper referencing mining companies employing this technique to squeeze out more Cu from ores.

Sources are thorough, representing an array of processes related to heap leaching, flotation, or solutions to extract more copper from ore. All sources are considered to be current, most from within the last 10 years (oldest from 2000, latest from 2022). Each paper article has different authors with few overlapping authors, if any.

There are no news pieces present as a source, nor are there random websites referenced. For more processes of leaching and history of the methods, the user is directed here, or this article for slag related processing, among the multitude of available scientific articles about copper extraction.

All links to scientific articles work, direct to site and address of publication.

Additional content is the draft article is understandable with some background information as links to other Wikipedia articles. Sentences are not long-winded and relay their point across very well for the topic.
 * Organization

There are few if any grammatical mistakes, and no spelling errors in the draft.

Following paragraphs of the original article, the content to be added follows the same organization. Each paragraph has its own relevant information to the section heading. Draft content is expanding on the current knowledge, but changing some older knowledge or unsourced material. This is helping to improve the information conveyed in the article, and further completes a sourceless section.
 * Overall impressions

Strengths of additional content proposed in the draft are that each sentence now has a scientific source to backup the claim, and presents newer information rather than older knowledge of the topic.

Improving the added content could entail finding more scientific papers that go into more detail about the processes for better notability (all were a few lines about the claim, see bibliography page). Further research about the broader topic of copper extraction and more methods could be mentioned for squeezing out more copper - including older methods that may not be as relevant with modern advancements - to also improve changes made to this page.