Talk:Free State Gold Rush

Of the page move

If someone opposes my recent move of the article from Free State goldfields to Free State Gold Rush, please let me know. EPIFANOVE^(TALK) 21:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Page development

Expanded by around 120% so far, but I have a lot of significant information to add (probably will double in size again by the end) with over 20 references. Aim is to work up to GA.

If any section seems chronologically disjointed, it is because I have yet to add content within it.

Assistance in referencing the text that was originally here, which has 0 in-text citations, is greatly appreciated. EPIFANOVE^(TALK) 00:16, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Back to it after hiatus Epifanove^🗯️ 16:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Schwede66 (talk) 06:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Russian gangs would provide women to South African gold miners in exchange for money and gold smuggled from the mines? Source: https://doi.org/10.1080/030570700108397
  • ALT1: ... that Russian gangs would provide women to gold miners in the South African Free State province in exchange for money and gold smuggled from the mines? Source: https://doi.org/10.1080/030570700108397
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: This is my first time submitting to DYK, hope I've done everything correctly, thank-you for reading.

5x expanded by Epifanove (talk). Self-nominated at 00:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Free State Gold Rush; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• @Epifanove: Sorry but this article doesn't look like it was expanded five times. The bytes have been expanded by five times but what Dyk looks for is a 5x expansion of prose which the article doesn't seem to meet. Sorry. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
• @Epifanove: There's still an option you could use to get this at DYK: nominate it for good article, and if it passes, then it qualifies. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Free State Gold Rush/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Johannes Schade (talk · contribs) 22:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Good day Epifanove. I propose to review your GA nomination "Free State Gold Rush". Admittedly, I am only an apprentice-reviewer. I must also warn you that my English is 2nd language and that I am no subject-matter expert. Should I lack in respect, do not hesitate to complain (see WP:CIVIL)

I had a first look and must say that my impression is that this text is not a GA. Is this really about a "Gold Rush" as the title pretends (see the Wikipedia article Gold rush)? It rather seems to try to cover "The Free State Gold Field" as the related articles in Afrikaans and in Spanish do.

Criterion 1 The text is difficult to understand. It does not have a clear flow; it jumps between various subjects and between various times in the mining history. The article uses old and new names in a manner that will confuse any reader who has not followed the renamings of placenames in South Africa since the end of Apartheid.

Criterion 3 The coverage of the subject is not broad. The Geology is too short. Some "facts" may be doubted such as that sinkholes result from the "obvious hollowing out" (see the Wikipedia article Sinkhole).

Crition 6 The writing on most illustrations is too small to be readable.

I am afraid that these shortcomings are too extensive to envisage fixing them in a GA review, but let us discuss, perhaps I am wrong. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Mr. Schade, I thank you for reviewing my article. I find the feedback you have left to be precise and relevant.

Your first concern:

I thought about this at length, and after reading every text I could find on the gold exploitation of the Orange Free State, I concluded that it would be more appropriate to name it a "Gold Rush". I am not entirely certain of this decision, but it does conform to the naming of the article on the Witwatersrand Gold Rush. The concern would be whether the Free State mining merits differentiation from the Witwatersrand gold rush, and my evaluation of relevant texts concluded that is most likely the case.

Dear Epifanove, the Wikipedia article Gold Rush explains a gold rush as "a discovery of gold ... that brings an onrush of miners seeking their fortune." The article references many articles on particular gold rushes, e.g. California Gold Rush, Klondike Gold Rush, Black Hills Gold Rush. In the typical case, the gold was alluvial (on the surface) and the land was public or ownership not well established or defended. Individual miners could stake claims and work them. A rush occurs when such individual miners arrive in big numbers. In the Free State Gold Field there was no alluvial gold and no rush by individual miners. No claims were staked. The land was privately owned, had been surveyed and fenced. The mineral rights belonged to the surface owners. The state defended the owners' rights. Companies rather than indiviuals drove the exploration, discovery, and exploitation. The miners were employed by the companies. There was no rush.

Criterion 1:

Encyclopaedic style as I understand it does not call for an entirely chronological and linear recounting of events. Different sections will detail different time periods when and where they relevant to the focus of the section. Nevertheless, I do see that there is work to be done in giving the text a more coherent flow. I will work on this.

I think the content of two sections History and Development should be presented in one section, perhaps with several subsections. I do not think we need a section Geography. The history section needs of course to mention the discovery of gold on the Witwatersrand, but I feel that Klerksdorp is given too much attention or is not well enough explained. Klerksdorp is not part of the Free State Gold Field.

Criterion 3:

In what way is the coverage not broad? I am not sure I understand. As for the geology section; I was not certain that any more information on the geology side of the issue was relevant to the scope of the article, but if you believe it is (and I would be inclined to trust your opinion as a geologist) I shall do my best (though I am only a novice in the study of it) to do it more justice.

The geology comes too short. I feel that probably few readers will understand the essential difference between the Witwatersrand and the Free State: The reefs crop out on the Witwatersrand but are almost entirely covered under overburden in the Free State. The age of the deposits is given as Precambrian. This is not wrong but very vague as this timespan covers all the time on Earth before the beginning of the Cambrian at about 538.8 million years (Ma) ago. But we can be more precise. According to the article Witwatersrand, the rocks of the Witwatersrand Supergroup were deposited between 2,970 Ma and 2,710 Ma during the Archean.

Mining also comes too short. The mining history is not detailed enough. Which mine was the first on the field? When did it go into production? No production figures are given. The article gives lists of mines under Impacts and under Operations.

The Impacts section list 11 mines: Beatrix, Erfdeel-Dankbaarheid, Free State Geduld, Jeanette, Loraine, Oryx, President Brand, President Steyn, St. Helena, Welkom, Western Holdings. I suppose the oldest is to be found among them.

The Operations section lists 4 companies owning 6 mines: Kopanang, Target, Unisel, Moab Khotsong, Beatrix, and Shaft Sinkers. One of them, namely Kopanang mine, belonging to Village Main Reef (VMR), is in Gauteng (not in the Free State) and part of what was formerly called Western Deep Levels at Carletonville in the West Wits gold field. Ideally, old and new names should be given but it is not easy to find them.

Sorry I was wrong Kopanang mine has nothing to do with Western Deep Levels. It was part of Vaal Reefs. Kopanang is in the Free State, just over the Vaal River, but not in the Free State Gold Field. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 11:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Mining history is complex. Many old mines have been closed entirely or partially and surviving shafts have then been merged with neighbouring mines. Most have been renamed. Most have also changed owner. It seems that Target Mine is a northword extension of the former Loraine Mine that uses the old Loraine #1 shaft. Loraine Mine is at Allanridge. President Steyn was the next mine to the south of Loraine. However it is probably unwise to go to such detail in the article.

Criterion 6:

This seems to be true only in the case of the stratigraphy illustration, as all other illustrations have clearly readable writing, especially when opened.

You are right, I had not zoomed in. The illustration showing a map of the Klerksdorp gold field is probably irrelevant. The photo showing miners in the Langlaagte mine in the 1920s is also irrelevant. Langlaagte is in Johannesburg, 1920 is way before the first mine opened in the Free State. It would be nice to have a map showing not only the towns but also where the mines are or were.

Once again, thank you for your feedback, and I will do my best on improving the article. Epifanove^🗯️ 21:04, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Rename?

I think the article should be renamed, probably to Free State Gold Field. I do not think it is possible to rename an article under review. I would have to fail the nomination and you would have to move the article and implement recommended improvements as far as possible. Then you would renominate the article and wait for another reviewer. Should we do this? Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

1.

Kopanang mine is actually in the Free State, the Wikipedia article on it is wrong. Its address is West Gold Plant Off Shaft Road Orkney South Africa 2619, which is definitely in the Free State.

Dear Epifanova, I apologise, you are right. Kopanang mine is near Orkney (and Klerksdorp) and has nothing to do with Western Deep Levels (now TauTona Mine. Indeed, Kopanang is on the Free State side of the Vaal River. One can see this clearly on Google Maps. However, it is part of the Klerksdorp Gold Field (aka. Far West Wits), not the Free State Gold Field, as it is north of the Bothaville Gap, which separates the two fields. Before the renaming, Kopanang was part of Vaal Reefs Mine and owned by Anglo-American. More precisely, Kopanang comprises Vaal Reef No 8 and No 9 shafts. Moab Khotsong also is a former part of Vaal Reefs and is also on the Free-State side of the river as can be seen in Google Maps. So is Noligwa (or Great Noligwa), which seems to be now a part of Harmony's Moab Khotsong Mine. Vaal Reefs is among others known for the Vaal Reefs mining disaster, which happened at Vaal Reefs No. 2 shaft in 1995. No 2 shaft is north of the River in the North-West Province.

2.

A gold rush is defined as "a rapid movement of people to a newly discovered goldfield". If you read documents from the years during which the Free State goldfields were prospected and developed, the excitement about the potential output from these certainly amounted to "gold rush" levels. They were expected to rival those of the Witwatersrand fields, which are in fact listed as a gold rush. Personally I think the title should stand as it is, although I concede that this is not uncontentious.

3.

I can either improve the article over the course of this week to implement the improvements, and you can review in this same review, or you can fail it and I will wait for another. As you prefer. Epifanove^🗯️ 21:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Dear Epifanove, thanks for your good collaboration. We do disagree on the article's title. I still believe that "gold rush" misleads the reader to imagine diggers running all over the place, panning in rivers, mining surface deposits, and squatting on the land. This has never happened neither in 1934 when gold was first discovered in the area, nor in 1946 when the "great discovery" was made and after it when the first mines opened. Even if we define gold rush as opening mines and employing workers who move to the area in big numbers, the article does not focus on that part of the history of the gold field but seems well to try to cover the entire history of the Free State Gold Field from the beginnings up to the present. I also still believe that the article is not ripe for a GA review. Many important facts are missing and many details are wrong like the inclusion of the Kopanang and Moab Khotsong mines, which are in the Free State but not in the Free State Gold Field or the linking of "Russian" gangs to Russian Mafia (these "Russians" are black Africans and just called so because Russian soldiers are known as being tough). I will fail the article for now. Take some time to improve the article and then renominate. I think this is the right way forward. I hope you found my remarks helpful and I thank your for your friendly and polite collaboration. Dear Epifanove, it was a pleasure to work with you. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 11:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Dear Johannes, that sounds good, i'll spend some time improving on what we discussed, thank you for your help. Cordially yours, Epifanove^🗯️ 12:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Orange free state gold fields.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)