User talk:JessicaDickson/sandbox

Merensky Reef

Contribution:

The first source is referenced incorrectly and does not support what is stated. The article says “The Reef is 46cm thick” and is linked to the first reference in the list. However, this claim is made in the fourth reference and was not found in the first reference. In addition, the link for the fourth reference is not working. These problems could be improved with proper referencing throughout the article, more references throughout the article to support the claims and further checking the entire article for any other mistakes.

The article has no structural headings, all the information is found under one big paragraph and it would be easier to locate specific information with headings. This could be improved by separating the information and adding heading in the article such as origin, composition and history.

There could be addition information about the crystallization process. The article cuts off at “Yet the nature of crystallization is complex.”. This could be improved with added information about the proposed models and theories for the concentration of PGE in the Reef, and the possible importance of sulphide. There could be addition information about the theories of the composition of the Merensky reef such as sulphides, silicates and chromites. This added information could benefit the article for a better understanding of the Merensky reef.

Lastly, the word choices and flow of article is poorly chosen. This could be improved by fixing spelling mistakes such as “recognised”. The article could be improved by proper and consistent punctuation because there is a lot of it’s and its. This improved would help the article because it would be easier to read and understand.

Bibliography:

Ballhaus, Chris, and Paul Sylvester. “Noble Metal Enrichment Processes in the Merensky Reef, Bushveld Complex.” Journal of Petrology, vol. 41, no. 4, 1 Apr. 2000, pp. 545–561., doi:10.1093/petrology/41.4.545.

Boudreau, Alan E. “Modeling the Merensky Reef, Bushveld Complex, Republic of South Africa.” Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, vol. 156, no. 4, 2008, pp. 431–437., doi:10.1007/s00410-008-0294-0.

Cawthorn, R.g. “A stream sediment geochemical re-Investigation of the discovery of the platiniferous Merensky Reef, Bushveld Complex.” Journal of Geochemical Exploration, vol. 72, no. 1, Jan. 2001, pp. 59–69., doi:10.1016/s0375-6742(00)00163-1.

Hutchinson, D, et al. “Concentration of particulate platinum-Group minerals during magma emplacement; a case study from the Merensky Reef, Bushveld Complex.” Journal of Petrology, 1 Jan. 1970, ecite.utas.edu.au/98142. Latypov, Rais, et al. “Field Evidence for the In Situ Crystallization of the Merensky Reef | Journal of Petrology | Oxford Academic.” OUP Academic, Oxford University Press, 10 July 2015, academic.oup.com/petrology/article/56/12/2341/2375423/Field-Evidence-for-the-In-Situ-Crystallization-of.

Naldrett, A. J., et al. “PGE Tenor and Metal Ratios within and below the Merensky Reef, Bushveld Complex: Implications for its Genesis | Journal of Petrology | Oxford Academic.” OUP Academic, Oxford University Press, 20 Apr. 2009, academic.oup.com/petrology/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/petrology/egp015.

Smith, Damian S., and Ian J. Basson. “Shape and distribution analysis of Merensky Reef potholing, Northam Platinum Mine, western Bushveld Complex: implications for pothole formation and growth.” Mineralium Deposita, vol. 41, no. 3, 2006, pp. 281–295., doi:10.1007/s00126-006-0059-5.

Peer Review
The information provided in the rough draft is neutral and relevant to the article that is being edited: Merensky Reef. The information that is being added comes from reliable sources which makes it valid and therefore helps support the additions. A portion of the rough draft aims to restructure the flow of the article and fix possible grammar issues. This will be beneficial to readers and will improve the quality of the article by making it clearer and easier to understand. The draft does have a good outline of what needs to be improved in the article, it was neutral and no biases were found in the rough draft. Overall, the rough draft is very well written! MHatherall (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer review #2
'''Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?''' The double paragraphs made the draft a little hard to read. I image simply using italics or strike-through formatting would be a simple fix. That's besides the point. Suggested sections to be added have been chosen wisely. Found nothing distracting or off-topic.

'''Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?''' Neutral

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? N/A

'''Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?''' I was not able to view the linked numbered reference boxes, but the provided bibliography is an repository of relevant and reliable sources of information. e.g. Mineralium Deposita, Oxford's Journal of Petrography, etc. Data and Info mention is well supported.

'''Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?''' As mention in last point, the source are reliable and they are scientific journals, neutral.

'''Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?''' The oldest reference is from 1970, but that should be fine. Everything else is more or less up to date. I can't think of anything missing. Maybe just industry or how this relates to the world or everyday life, but that's no requirement for a scientific type article.

Other comments All in all, the rough draft has good potential. I like where it is headed. I just would like to mention to be careful for any close-paraphrasing. Change the the second use case of "there is another theory", otherwise good work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joedf (talk • contribs) 21:09, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review
Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

I recommend adding the "Bold" feature to the headings just so they can stand out and be more clear to the audience reading the article. All in all i found the information to be very straight forward however i recommend organizing the article as a whole.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

i did not find any bias in the paper. I would say it is neutral overall.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I think it was fair throughout. Neutral and straight to the point

Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? the linked references (numbered) were out of reach and i could not view them. however, the other links were up to date and worked fine.

Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? These sources are science articles and journals and are to be relied on in my point of view.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?

i think all the references were up to date except for one source that dated to 1970; but when it comes to a geologic topic that is fine to use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marawanansassy (talk • contribs) 00:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments on Rough draft from Sarah
Hi Jessica,

A couple comments about your rough draft. Avoid contracting phrases such as do not to don't. In scientific literature we always use the full phrase (we do not use contractions). Also, I noticed a couple comma splices in the original work. Try to clean these up. One example is the sentence that ends with (" made exploitation economically feasible"). It's an awkward sentence... can you maybe try to break it up into two shorter sentences?

Other than that, I like that you added headings and have found some new sources. It would be great if you could add a couple new facts too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TA ERTH4303 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)