Talk:Groom Mine/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 23:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to it this weekend. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

sources need identifiers, e.g. ISSN, OCLC, ISBN
- Some sources are sufficiently old enough that they do were not issued a ISSN, ISBN, or OCLC. Such as this source. For newer books, such identifiers were provided.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 21:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, I added OCLCs to the first few sources myself. Just for future reference, every single book/magazine/item in worldcat's respiratory has an OCLC. Also, please be more careful when citing sources as to the type, publisher etc. What google books says is not always what is reflected in the actual scan. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
could use archive links (though not required for ga)
Further reading url is broken
- url is correct per search of the University of Nevada, Reno, but it does appear to be down at the moment, so WP:LINKROT pertains, but should be retained or replaced once the link issue has been resolved. That said the Library has extensive records (1, 2) for the mine (and surrounding district).--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 21:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How does cite #7 meet WP:RS? It is owned by Gawker Media, which operates Gawker, which is per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, not a reliable source. This makes me think that Gawker Media was a poor news source.
- Please see the note about Gawker at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, it does not say it is not a reliable source, it says "There is no consensus about the reliability of Gawker. Although Gawker was cited by reliable sources, most editors consider Gawker a low-quality source and prefer more reliable sources when available." Moreover, see the note about page on Foxtrot Alpha, a part of Jalopnik, a part of Gizmodo, which itself is part of Univision Communications. As Gizmodo is not Gawker, nor is on the Perennial Sources page the issue is not one IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 00:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  Fair enough... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't cite #10 use {{cite report}}, or #3 use {{cite book}} for consistency?
- Looking at cite #10 it does use {{cite book}} and is refname "District1989-162".--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 00:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  RightCowLeftCoast, Based on this revision Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - - I have made the change to cite report as requested, see this diff.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
how is cite #11 a rs? It specifically says on the source that "This information should be considered preliminary. It has not been edited or checked for completeness or accuracy"
ditto for #14
- Both of these are government reports, and are accurate to what it stated in it. As Wikipedia is a Work in Progress, if a more complete or up to date report is issued, we can edit the article with the more up to date and accurate information. Information is accurate to the sources, which I believe are reliable, which I was able to find at the time the article was published. Additionally, looking at other reports (example 1, example 2) regarding mineral reports many have that preliminary disclaimer for some reason. IMHO, the content while not "checked for completeness or accuracy" (IMHO, by a second set of people), does not make it any less of a reliable source as the report is issued by a government agency and is accurate to its staff's knowledge at the time of the reports publication.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 00:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  OK Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck

Using a random number generator, I have spotchecked the following

27: Good (with #21)
12a: Page numbers should be 7-1 or 7-2 or corresponding similar number. Good
29a: cannot find anything about it being the first test ~~not good~~
20:good. Why not give the depth of both (seeing as there are only two)
16: Good
- Overall probably pass, no major concerns... just waiting to hear back on 29a. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Eddie891: I have modified the language of the sentence connected to 29a, the Easy shot of the Tumbler-Snapper series of detonations, is the first which is mentioned in sources to have impacted activity at Groom Mine, I have changed working to that effect. I have also expanded the information with the amount of radiation measured at Groom Mine for the Easy and Fox detonations. See this diff here. --RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 04:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks, pass on sourcesEddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

Lede could be longer
- The Lead section properly summarizes the sections of the article, would you like the lead to go into more detail? If so into what? --RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 21:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - talk a bit about the actual mining in the mine maybe, Add what happened between the '50s and 2015...
~~You might want to request a GOCE copy edit, or thoroughly read through the article again.~~ Just skimming, there are many things that jump out to me
- via eminent domain via a court order in repetition of via
- The last two sentences in Background aren't really background, and might even make more sense in the lede.
- was 5,250 above sea leve 5,250 what? and why should that make it isolated? just being high up doesn't mean it's not on a plateau or similar, surrounded by other high up places.
- the property claim is officially named "Conception" what property claim? make clear how big it is. Is it the current Groom mine property or not? Is it what the patent was issued for?
- link to Land patent
- immigrated from Austria-Hungary, of the Groom Mining Company died at the mine. Clarify phrasing, because it reads to me like the immigrant was from the Groom Mining Co.
- Road to the mine coming from the west were closed due to military activities a road? or roads?
  - I have made changes requested above, see this diff here. Please let me know of any changes that need to be made.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Eddie891: Is there anything else needed to be modified for prose?--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 04:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    RightCowLeftCoast, Coming up today -- sorry, I've been swamped with work lately Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The 1875 opening date needs to be sourced in the infobox, and the lede sentence (1870s) should have a specific date for opening.
- I found a new source from archive.org of a report in the BLM Library dating to August 1986, stating that work in the area of the Groom Mine site may have began as early at 1866. I have added that to the article. I am putting the active date at 1872, as the sources state that as the creation of the patent for the mine. See the diff here.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 18:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If "Most mining in the area was finished by 1874", but the infobox says it opened in 1875, how does that work?
  - According to the source the mining in the district finished around 1874, however as the references show Groom Mine continued operation (and its various patents which the mine acquired within the district) continued well after all other activity had stopped.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 18:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By 1956, official recordings of products of the district shows that the largest mineral harvested was lead, as well as over 145,000 troy ounces (4,500 kg) of silver, and about 45 troy ounces (1.4 kg) of gold was that in 1956 alone? or cumulative? if in 1956, why did mining continue after the mine was closed in 1954?
- While the source clearly states that the mining at Groom Mine ending in 1954, the report of the activity of the mine came at the later date of 1956 according to the source.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 18:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how military activity includes the destruction of a mill and restriction of access. Maybe it led to those things?
- The source clearly states that the military bombed the mill. Another source ("Then in 1978, the government suddenly placed a guard gate on Groom Mine road—a road the Sheahans themselves built with help from the county around 1950 when an approach to the mine from the west became impossible due to government road closures.") clearly states that the roads to the west were closed by military activites.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 18:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Add year for the comstock lode.
- Done.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 18:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like the background section could be better chronologically arranged (maybe move the eras of the rocks to the first sentence)
- Done.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 18:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What type of mill was built at the mine (what did it do)?
What was a "concentration mill"?
- Please read the sources: "the mill used both the gravity and flotation methods to process the ore", this source refers to that mill as a "concentration mill".--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 18:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ore, from which lead and silver was extracted, mined from Groom Mine was found to contain cerussite and galena when?
- Please read the source, it does not specify a specific year.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 18:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
leading to the Sheahan family, as well as Lincoln County, to build a road from the east. As in two seperate roads were built, one by Lincoln County, the other by the Sheahans? clarify. what was the name of the road?
- Please read the reply I wrote above about the restriction of access, a quote is listed above.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 18:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
paused due to nearby nuclear tests. what years was it paused during?
- Early 1950s, please see the source.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 18:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
why was production from the mine ended?
- Destruction of the mill, see the source.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 18:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The mine product until 1956 totaled almost a million dollars in several minerals including copper, silver, and gold If production ended in 1954, shouldn't that be the year it totaled to? Maybe change to "until closure, the mine produced almost a million dollars worth of several minerals..."\
- That is not what the source says, adding that would be OR.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 18:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
valued the output of Groom mine products at $3.75 million $3.75 million a year? totaL?
- Please see the source, it does not say "a year", why assume that? --RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 18:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was the most productive mine in the Groom Mining District when? what years?
- Source does not give a specific date range.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 18:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  RightCowLeftCoast, Just to clarify, the questions I ask are things I would like to be added to the article. I am quite capable of reading the sources, but feel like it would increase comprehensiveness to add the the answers to my questions when applicable to the article. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like the military interaction to be organized chronologically, rather than each paragraph being about a specific topic.
- @Eddie891: The Military interaction section is mostly organized chronologically, I will move some things around to make it more the way you requested. Also I have attempted to modify the article to include answers to the questions posted above as I see fit, as some of the questions asked above are clearly stated in the sources and the article and need not be expanded upon IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed