Talk:Merensky Reef

Geology Mid‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Merensky Reef is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mining High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mining, a collaborative project to organize and improve articles related to mining and mineral industries. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, or visit the project page, where you can see a list of open tasks, join in the discussion, or join the project.MiningWikipedia:WikiProject MiningTemplate:WikiProject MiningMining articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JessicaDickson, Chanhasanna. Peer reviewers: Joedf, Thabisomodise.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reef?

Is the Merensky Reef underwater? 69.61.233.82 (talk) 22:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reef is an old mining term for gold bearing quartz veins. See: Vein (geology)#Gold-bearing veins or Quartz reef mining (altho that article needs work). Vsmith (talk) 22:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Merensky Reef. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thabiso's peer review

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

All the information in the article is relevant and direct. The editors did an excellent job at presenting the information in simple, easily understandable language.

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

The article is neutral, presenting the information in an unbiased manner.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

The viewpoints are well represented. The editor managed to separate the information into separate headers, which makes the article easy on the eye.

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

All the citations work properly. Going forward, I hope these citations will be added within the text to help the reader identify which information is from which source.

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

The facts aren't referenced properly. However, given that this is a draft, I guess it will be fixed going forward.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

The information presented is well up to date. This was confirmed by checking all the references.

Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

One interesting question about whether the Merensky Reef was underwater. This question could have been answered.

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

The article is not rated. This article is apart of WikiProject Geology, WikiProject Mining and WikiProject Rocks and Minerals.

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

This article does not extensively cover the mining of the ore in the Merensky Reef, which could be vital information for the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thabisomodise (talk • contribs) 01:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]