User talk:PatJardine/sandbox

Peer Review on Placer Mining
I chose to edit the "Placer mining" Wikipedia article and any changes that are being made by PatJardine in Carleton Universities ERTH 4303 after reading their rough draft. Based off the 5 elements that the best Wikipedia articles have the Placer mining page does have lead section that is easy to understand however it is short for a Wikipedia page that does have multiple sub-topics and lots of information within it. One recommendation I have is to add one-two sentences that are summaries of each sub-topic for the lead section to be a well-rounded representation of the entire page. Since the rough-draft editing process is over several weeks, I recommend adding these in at the end before the final submission so that all of their edits are taken into account for better accuracy of the lead section. The structure of the page is well sorted and easy to follow/understand as each sub-topic flows with the following sub-topic and are somewhat related. Balanced coverage of all sub-topics is really well established in this article and is not commonly seen in Wikipedia articles that are marked with needing improvement. In my case, this is something that I do need to work on throughout my own article and it was definitely beneficial to see other articles that are being edited to see proper article structure when it comes to balanced coverage. The content is very neutral and all of the students editions are very well and neutrally written. Finally, all of the sources that the student editor added are peer reviewed reliable sources which completes it to be a well-written article, with all additions being beneficial to the overall quality of the article. However, I would recommend the editors to try to find more recent sources as theirs are all from 2001 or older. The reason I recommend this is because it was brought to my attention when speaking to another Wikipedia student editor from another course at Carleton University as it was something their professor recommended. Something I gained from reviewing this article was to bold edits that I plan to make on the article to make it clear for the TA, professor and other editors that are reviewing any changes I have made. I will definitely take this method into consideration when editing/adding to my rough draft in the future. I would also recommend the editor to write out the changes they plan to make so that the TA, professor and other editors can understand and physically see that changes/improvements are made over time until the final draft is due in April. AnnikaET (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review 2
Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

Everything that is being added to the article is relevant to the topic and nothing distracting was found in the article.

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

The article maintains a neutral tone throughout, and appears to have no bias or claims to a particular position.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

There are no viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented.

Check a few citations.

I notice that you have to the same source in the reference section multiple times (Basque, G. (1999). Methods of placer mining. Surrey, B.C: Heritage House p.36.) There is a part in the training tutorials that show how to cite multiple times to the same source. This will help condense down your reference section and remove redundant sources. Otherwise the sources are all good.

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?

All the facts are appropriately referenced, and are from neutral sources.

Is any information out of date?

All information is up to date.

Overall I feel that your contributions to the article are excellent.

--Carson209 (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review 3
I found this article to be compelling and sticks to on-topic discussion to different aspects of placer mining.

going through the article, I also found that information was neutral throughout.

for the viewpoints of the article as of now, there is good content on the history, nad styles of placer mining. perhaps it would be good to see its relationship to the area that is being operated in be it geologic or geographic.

looking at the references, I would only say it would be good to have duplicate references organized, either than that references seemed on topic to the article.

HPokrandt (talk) 04:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)