User talk:MHatherall/sandbox

Peer Review for Rio Tinto (River) by Abineaga Muralitharan
The current rough draft on the Rio Tinto River is a good outline on the what information that will be added to the article needs to have. The current information is relevant with neutral content and reliable resources. There needs to be more sources cited because currently there is only 2 sources. The current rough draft needs more detail and supporting information because the information present is very vague. An example of where the rough draft could add more information is the section on the 'environmental concerns due to the acid drainage...' and the last sentence on 'research done...' which could use specific examples. Abineaga.m (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Abineaga.mAbineaga.m (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review - Jaimee
Following the peer review checklist on Wikipedia: Everything that was mentioned from the rough draft was relevant to the article topic. The information that was intended to be added was relevant. Since there was only a few paragraphs that was in the sandbox so far, it did not seem like any of it was biased or had an intended perspective for the reader to see through. It was neutral. The viewpoints that were presented were not being overrepresented or underrepresented. The citations seemed legitimate and related to the topic. Due to the lack of information in the original article, I think it gives great opportunity for the group to add more citations and sources. From what I got from the article there needs to be more content and more citations to support the existing information. Other than that, great job! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:E31F:FFBD:59AC:D191:5B8B:8716 (talk) 05:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review 2
'''Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?''' Everything in the the article is relevant to the topic, however it is heavily invested on the acidification of the river and the changes to the river.

'''Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?''' The article is mostly neutral, however the article tends towards an environmentalist approach.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Regarding the first point, the article seems to be representing how acidity affects the system.

'''Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?''' Yes the links support the claims in the article.

'''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?''' Both sources that are provided are from articles or papers in a book or journal that is presented in a neutral way. The articles are found within books that are used for informative purposes, and don't have bias.

'''Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?''' Both sources are published in the 2000's, so information is up to date.

Other comments I think that the article heavily leans on the processes that change the river. Might want to explore factors that shape the area, biodiversity within the Rio Tinto area, etc. and include environmental concerns as maybe a sub-heading of the article. Well written, the draft gives a lot of information, but the article needs structure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcusmembrere (talk • contribs) 00:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review 3 (Lukasz Quinn) – Rio Tinto (river)

 * Everything stated in your rough draft is relevant to the article in question. The links used do support the information you have provided.


 * “The Rio Tinto river is a very polluted river which is due to the acid drainage from the mining history in the area and also natural acid rock drainage There are severe environmental concerns over the pollution in the river.” If this is true, you should cite this information. I am sure that you can find articles or even credible websites that state this. Also, I checked the wikipage on this topic and noticed that those first two sentences in your rough draft have already been inferred throughout the wikipage. It seems you are repeating information that has already been touched on.


 * Since you have your rough draft in point form, it would be good if you create sections such as The History of the River, or Environmental Concerns, as you mentioned in your planning phase. This would help with the organization and make it easier to follow.


 * “Research done on the river indicates that the river originally had high levels of acid and iron before mining was introduced to the area.” This is a bit misleading because it is not clear if you mean around 3000 BC as suggested in the original page or in 1873 when Rio Tinto began mining.


 * The grammar is alright however, this sentence could use some work “The mining history of this river has led its pollution issues and therefore, more accurate history of this river should be posted.”


 * Looking at the Rio Tinto (river) page, I noticed that there were citations needed for certain things. Maybe you could expand your draft by adding those citations.


 * Also, it would be cool to see an estimate on how much ore was mined from here. Obviously, we will never know how much was mined during 3000 BC but maybe during Rio Tinto’s time.


 * This is a good outline however, you should definitely expand on it. Hopefully this helps you with the final draft. Good luck!

Lukaszquinn

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

Overall, this draft is relevant to the article topic, however, the order in which subtopics are introduced is confusing to follow. This article lacks a strong introduction and lead section, making it difficult to follow from one bullet point to the next. For example, the beginning of the draft describes environmental concerns associated with the river, however general information about the physical parameters of the river is found in the last bullet point at the end of the draft. It would be advisable to add subheadings to increase the readability of this article. It may be beneficial to start with basic facts associated with the river and then move on to greater topics such as the environmental concerns associated with the river.

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

This article is generally neutral, however many bullet points in this draft are focused on negative impacts of mining around the river and the subsequent environmental degradation attributed to mining activities. There is no information about the economic profitability associated with the mining production.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

This article focuses primarily on environmental aspects and concerns associated with the Rio Tinto river and less on any other aspects of the river's geology, geography, aquatic life etc. It would be beneficial to include more general information about the river.

Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

The citations in the draft are linked appropriately and support the information stated. It is advisable to add more references from different sources and journals to get neutral information about the river.

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?

Each fact is supported with reliable, scientific information from scientific journals. Additionally, there are only two sources provided, which can lead to biased information presented.

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

There is no information out of date, however as said before, many more sources are needed in order to make this article a well represented presentation of the Rio Tinto river.

Other comments

This article is factual and well written. There are grammatical errors such as 'The mining history of this river has led its pollution issues and therefore' needs to be 'The mining history of this river has led TO its pollution issues and therefore'

Otherwise, keep up the good work. I look forward to reading the final product!

Contributingknowledge (talk) 01:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)JacobContributingknowledge (talk) 01:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review 4
- Overall the article seems to be very informative, and the topic sounds fascinating

- For the most part article maintains a neutral status, those at times it did felt they took on an environmentalist perspective

- The structure of it did seem confusing to a reader, didn't seem to be a leading section present. Not to mention some information shown in the physical characteristic section was similar to the anerobic sediments section, "The Rio Tinto River is habitat to certain forms of bacteria, algae and heterotrophs. More specifically eukaryotes and chemolithotrophic bacteria, as well as other microorganisms".

- As other reviwers have mentioned a lot of the article seems to be focused on the negative polluants in the river, maybe considering making a section on mining history or the economic success the mining corportations had in the area?

- Certain sentences seem to lack citations at the end, having citations to these sentences would make it easier for readers to see where you got your information. Example, "The presence of Anaerobic bacteria in the form of sediments is thought to contribute to the rivers famously low pH."

- Grammar wise, I believe spelling and sentence structure will get clean up in the making of the final draft of the article. However, one piece of advice I want to bring up using the word "very". Very is usually seen as a lazy word to describe an adjective, instead consider using a stronger adjective to describe the noun, or just delete very altogether and keep the adjective the way it is. For example, 'The Rio Tinto river is a contaminated river', or 'The Rio Tinto river is a polluted river' Not a major change grammarly, but it will make your writing stand out a little better.÷

Anyway best of luck in finishing your article, hope you guys do well at the end of the day. Cheers! Alexjkennedy (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)