User talk:Ryan Hadaway/sandbox

Peer Review
Other comments on Carson209 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SailorJupiter4 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Processing of Deposits

- Seems awkward to start a new section with the word "after", possibly re-word to "Following deposit extraction by ..."

- Link to ball mill Wiki page for readers to have easy access to information if they are unfamiliar with it; again with other processes

Data

- Possibly shorten number to 528 thousand

Waste Material

- "Tailing waste" is redundant as tailings is the waste produced; what kind of impacts are produced?; what is thickening?

- Link to lime page

- Possibly shorten number to 108 thousand

Environment

- If both statements are from the same source, you only need to reference at the end of the paragraph

Water

- Possibly reference the pipeline first; "A pipeline is required to obtain the necessary water required for mining because all well water ..."

- Possibly shorten number to 50 thousand; "...run-off and/or recycled..."

- Make sure you know when to use tailing (residue) vs. tailings (left over materials)

- "Allows for the mine..." not allowed

Recovery of Metals from Tailings

- Link to bio-leaching

- What is HZL? Must state full names before using abbreviations

- "microwave irradiation's" is possessive, do you mean "microwave irradiation"?; "They have found..." could be "it was found" because you are then citing the source afterward

- "This is much higher recovery..." should be "this is a much..."

_________________________________________________

The structure of your current article draft flows nicely and contains many well done and detailed sources. However, many of your mistakes were due to punctuation, spelling, etc. Double checking word choice and punctuation would be beneficial to the article; add Wiki page links for the reader to have better knowledge base access. Overall, the current draft is looking good and provides a nice, un-biased representation of the subject, and the paragraph at the end stating what you wish to continue to add to the article is helpful in seeing its direction. SailorJupiter4 (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Response

In my opinion rewording the data numbers for production and waste that your clarified to make them shorter is not proper for the article. The article should contain the exact numbers if available instead of using generalized estimations to ensure proper data sets are shown. I also understand that clarification for when tailings is used is important to determine proper syntax. Although, tailings as you refereed too are still classified under the general definition but I can look into adding sytax to clarify what I am referring the tailings to in terms of its primary form or leftover residue when water is extracted. As this is a rough draft I understand that grammar and spelling errors must be corrected for the final product as well as adding in links to different wikipedia pages to ensure that the final product is usable on the wikipedia platform.

Peer Review
-The neutral syntax is excellent -Credible sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonCharbonneau (talk • contribs) 16:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

After the deposits are extracted by drilling, blasting, and underground mining the deposits are loaded and taken to be processed, while leftover debris, rock, and other waste *"are" brought to specific areas for removal[1]. The deposits are first put through a ball mill to break up the material further[2]. The material is *processed through a semi-autogenous grinding mill an additional three times, *specifically targeting the extraction of the ore from the parent material[2]. The processed material is *separated to retrieve the lead and zinc *concentrates through flotation methods[1]. The different densities of the material allow for the retrieval of the two different metals separately[1]. The lead and zinc concentrates are transported to the Chanderiya smelter complex to further refine the metals*[1].

- some minor grammar but the article addition is well put together based on our guidelines and Wikipedia's guidelines

JasonCharbonneau (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Response

I see the grammatical errors that you have pointed out and will take under advisement to changes that should be made for the final product. The confirmation of the article containing the right neutrality is also very helpful to ensure I did not write biased.