User talk:Joedf/sandbox/draft bushveld

Peer Review notes:

Bushveld Igneous Complex (BIC)

Attention to grammar and capitalization especially at the beginning of sentences.

Duely noted. - Joedf (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

“The Bushveld Igneous Complex (BIC) is the largest layered igneous intrusion within the Earth's crust which has been tilted and eroded and now outcrops around what appears to be the edge of a great geological basin, the Transvaal Basin.” –unclear sentence structure. Is it just the largest layered igneous intrustion or every thing else after as well?

Agreed. It is a run-on sentence that clearly has to be changed, but was originally written this way just to have our ideas down in words. "Write drunk, edit sober" is the philosophy here, as this is a rough draft. - Joedf (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

“Located in South Africa, the BIC contains some of the richest ore deposits on Earth” -needs citation

You are correct, citations are important. I have added another one. It is provided as the end of the paragraph after: "It represents about 75 percent of the world’s platinum and about 50 percent of the world's palladium resources. In this respect, the Bushveld complex is unique and one of most economically significant mineral deposit complex in the world.". - Joedf (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Pulled from your sandbox under the economy tab: “The chrome seams of the Bushveld, while of lower grade than the Rhodesian or Turkish ores, form the major share of the total known chrome reservoirs of the world. their very thick and continuous seams over scores of miles of strike and their persistence in depth as proved by deep drilling, which in fact makes it very easy and cheap for mining. The titano-magnetite seams of the Main Zone illustrate similar persistence and continuity, but there has not been many significant expoitation to this day. Titanium is now assuming importance in metallurgy and nothing is curtained on weather treatment of these ores will happen in the future. moreover, within the the titano-magnetite ore is a persistent fraction of vanadium therefore, the total reserves of vanadium and titanium could potentially be large one day. With that being said, it is very obvious that the ores of the Bushveld igneous complex occupies a prominent place in the world's mineral resources. [6]”

Pulled from the article you cite for the above passage: “The chrome seams of the Bushveld, while of lower grade than the Rhodesian or Turkish ores, form the major proportion of the total known chrome reserves of the world. Their continuity in thick seams over scores of miles of strike and their persistence in depth as proved by deep drilling, make for easy and cheap mining.The titano-magnetite seams of the Main Zone show the same persistency and continuity, but have not been exploited to date. Titanium is now assuming importance in metallurgy and there is little doubt that treatment of these ores will be attempted in the future. Contained in the titano-magnetite ore is a persistent fractional percentage of vanadium. The total reserves of titanium and vanadium in these iron ores must be very large.It is obvious, therefore, that the ores of the Bushveld igneous complex occupy a prominent place in the world’s mineral resources.”

This is plagiarism.

Thanks, it has been rectified. - Joedf (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The reference cited above is also of dubious origin. Is this a peer reviewed publication? This is unclear to me.

I question the validity of the citation also. I shall find better. - Joedf (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

After checking it again, I found that the original PDF version is available on the side. It is from Platinum_Metals_Review which is a peer-reviewed scientific journal, the text on the webpage is just the copied abstract and what not. - Joedf (talk) 02:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

In the Mining and Operations subheaders. There are a number of missing citations for information provided. Some of the citations provided do not support the statement made. While the economist is a well regarded publication it is not appropriate for some of the statements made.

True. I had done quite a bit of preliminary reading before this wiki assignment. I was particularly interested in knowing why the price of platinum had dropped down below the price of gold. I had posted some of the sources from my readings here. They are not really statements but rather just brainstorming keywords for the rough draft. - Joedf (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Some of your citations are not peer-reviewed sources and it is unclear what you are trying to support with them due to missing citations for other facts and ideas.

These are preliminary sources for ideas: more reliable sources will be researched and ideas that cannot be appropriately supported will be rooted out.

I acknowledge that this is an early draft but pay careful attention to plagiarism (subheader:economy). Other than this much of the information you present is unsupported. Add your in text citations if you have them and consider reviewing your selected sources for scientific rigor.

Noted. - Joedf (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

This being said the information you propose to add to the article is interesting and relevant. Some of your sources are appropriate and do add value to the article. I feel I have a better grasp of the formation and its importance. --Belangier (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for such a comprehensive review. I appreciate the time taken and the strong attention to detail that was employed. I must apologize for the crudeness of the draft. Wikipedia's writing style is constricting; I find that "key-point" writing is too restrictive and takes a toll on fluidity. - Joedf (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Week 8 Peer Review - Calder Patterson — Preceding unsigned comment added by CalderPatterson (talk • contribs) 17:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Lead Section

I read the first draft before the “Editing Copy”, you fixed all of my initial comments, great job. Only comments are that it’s light on references and the paragraphs are really just sentences, bring them together or expand on each one to make proper paragraphs. Include more non-geological information?

Noted -Marawanansassy (talk) 03:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Industry - Economy

Should this section come after the geology section since you discuss geologic concepts in it? Build the base?

Plenty of spelling and grammar to fix, I’m sure you know that, don’t sweat it, but some things that jump out are: “chrome seams”, should it be “chromite” or “chromitite”, whether, not weather, Read your writing out loud when it comes time to edit, it really helps to actually hear what you’ve written when you’re trying to fix grammar.

Link key words to other wiki articles, like in the lead section, it helps the reader to be able to branch out quickly if they don’t understand or know about something you mention.

Include some numbers that demonstrate some of your points, particularly the “major share” part.

Mention the global markets that depend on this deposit, both as an export and an import, and the industries that use the resources.

I think the potential deposits can be mentioned but really should only be expanded on in the mining and/or geology sections.

Also, nothing is "obvious", state it if it’s true or propose it with evidence (RE: the last sentence).

Light on references.

Definitely agree. We will make this section after the geology. -Marawanansassy (talk) 03:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Industry - Mining

Similar to Economy: spelling and grammar.

A lot of this information belongs in the economy section. Mining, as you mention in 'operations', should cover extraction operations & methods, reserves, etc. (maybe impact, but it could be its own section). You can definitely draw the line at refining, though you could mention where the ore is refined.

Noted. -Marawanansassy (talk) 03:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

—> Operations

I like the list, and I like the suggestions for elaboration on each one, I might steal them. Just follow through.

Probably doesn’t need to be its own subsection though.

—> Reserves

When there is more, like operations, consider just making this part of a larger mining section, not just a sub-point.

They are all under the main heading "industry". Furthermore, the operations and reserves sectors are both subheadings of Economy. -Marawanansassy (talk) 04:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Origin

Could just be called geology.

Lots of links, I dig it.

Magma didn’t come to the surface to form this deposit (not extrusive), it’s intrusive so say it was emplaced in the crust. In different places you describe the complex as both extrusive and intrusive, pick one (98% sure it’s intrusive).

Is it necessary to mention the Vredefort impact structure if it isn’t related to the BIC? Is there a controversy or debate about whether they are related?

In the last paragraph, Reef is italicized, why? Which reef is it? The Plat reef?

Merge the last two paragraphs and describe each reef entirely before moving to the next one, don’t jump around. I see that the last paragraph focuses on PGEs but I think the separation is unnecessary.

Add your in-text citations

Noted. Thanks a lot for the great pointers, we will definitely use them to our advantage. -Marawanansassy (talk) 03:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Great job boys, you’re killing it. CalderPatterson (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)