User talk:Carson209/sandbox

Peer Review
Good start to the article writing process. Some suggestions moving forward would be to add more detail when discussing the geology of the region, for example what processes were responsible for the formation of the deposits. it would also be a good idea to add more info into the history section you have written that discusses the techniques used in finding and mining the deposits, before the current way of extraction.

Peer Review 2
'''Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?''' Everything in the article is relevant to the topic, the history aspect of the article is very well written.

'''Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?''' Yes the article is written from a strictly informative standpoint and does not take bias.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Understanding it's a first draft, I think the geology of the area is a little underrepresented as it gives insight on to how and why certain minerals form.

'''Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?''' The citations do work and support the claims of the author.

'''Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources?''' The sources are mostly written from a neutral standpoint. However one of the sources is written apart of a website that may try and sway investors in invest, so it may not be fully neutral.

'''Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?''' The information is up to date and no information needs to be added.  Other comments Good start to the draft, would like to see figures from reports or studies done to the area. (i.e tonnage, grade, etc.) Possibly explore into 43-101 reports written on this mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcusmembrere (talk • contribs) 00:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Revier for Rampura Agucha
First of all, you and your partner did a great job on improving the quality of the article by re-constructing sections and adding more sections.

I would suggest you add a map of Rampura Agucha to show where it is actually located and possibly a picture of the mine. Readers, who do not know the geography of India, has no idea of where Rampura Agucha is in India. The map will give readers an idea of where this article is talking about and make readers more interested in the topic.

The information that have added is unbiased and is primarily from published papers. However, few sentences are not cited the references of "Hindustan Zinc Limited - Operations". and "Krishnan, K.H.; Mohanty, D.B.; Sharma, K.D. (2007)" are both listed in you and your partner's sandboxes. When you combine all the information in the article, you should remove the repeated references and put them in the order. It will provide readers an access to the original source, if they want more details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkmg192 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review
Other comments on Ryan Hadaway

Lead

- There are 2 citations in the first sentence

- Capitalize Bijainagar; what is NH 79?

- Lower case "and"

History

- "Rampura-Agucha" is not hyphenated in any other section; you can put HZL instead of the whole company name because the abbreviation was already stated

- Last sentence feels cut off, or like the word mine should be mines

Geology

- Already know the location, but the belt information is useful.

- What metamorphic event?; again, 2 sources for one sentence

Smelter for this mine

- Sentence should start with "the"

- Second sentence feels awkward, perhaps replace with something along the lines of "Rampura Agucha is the world's largest zine producing mine today"

________________________________________________

Overall, this is a good start to the article with appropriate sources. Be careful of awkward sentence structure and citation formatting. You could possibly put a focus on the metamorphism of the area, or at least explain which events occurred. As well as increase background information on the smelter. SailorJupiter4 (talk) 01:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Week 8 Peer Review
The information added, edited and fixed in the article is relevant and further clarifies the article topic. I did not find any of the information distracting. The rewording and additional information added to the introduction and the new headings are useful and referenced appropriately. I liked how they moved the location heading into the introduction because the original location heading was only one sentence and did not have enough information to stand alone. The reworded introduction flows a lot better.

The article seems to be a little bias, however there is no evident claims or frames that appear to be heavily biased towards a specific position. Although, the article has several references referring to the Hindustan Zinc Limited company itself which may result in some bias in the information provided. I only consider it to be a little bias because there are other references from the environmental policy and it seems to be corresponding with the information/references from Hindustan Zinc Limited. In addition, the references are well scattered and supported through the article.

The history section seems to be underrepresented, however the rest of the article seems well represented in the other sections because they added additional information about the processing of deposits, waste material, environmental and the recovery of metal from tailing. The added information gives a good overall understanding of the article topic.

The citations are reliable and the sources support the claims in the article. The links worked and the other citations were easily found on the internet.

Each fact is referenced with an appropriate and reliable reference. Almost every fact presented is referenced. The information is coming from Hindustan Zinc Limited, Environmental policy in mining and hydrometallurgy. There is a bias in the information from Hindustan Zinc Limited because the mine itself is owned by the company. The bias is not noted but evident.

The information does not seem to be out of date and the references date ranges from 2010 to 1997. The only two topics I would add in addition to the list of topics the editors wanted to already add to this article would be environmental impacts because in one of the references, it was written extensively about and secondly, some updated new statistics about the mine. It would be a helpful addition to the overall understanding and perhaps help balance out the bias feel in the article.

I would check that the grammar is consistent throughout the article. There was a couple sentences I noticed that had no period and missing spaces such as

“The development of this mine started in 1988 and the first ore production was in March 1991. Rampura-Agucha has a combination of open pit mine and underground mine”

“The deposit was originally a sedex deposit before experiencing a metamorphic event.[2]The high grade metamorphic event is theorized to have occurred approximately 1 billion years ago.”

Overall, the article has a good balanced coverage and a clear structure.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JessicaDickson (talk • contribs) 03:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

comments from sarah
Great start!

Can you introduce Rampur Agucha as a metamorphosed sedex deposit (and then link to the sedex page). Can you mention the type of igneous rocks (are these granitic batholiths, or mafic flows)?. Is there a specific event tied to this high grade metamorphism at 1 Ga, maybe it has a name? Can you mention the ore minerals? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TA ERTH4303 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)