Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Uranium mining in the Bancroft area/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 26 July 2023 [1].

---

Uranium mining in the Bancroft area

Nominator(s): CT55555(talk) 15:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

This article is about the history of Bancroft, Ontario the mineral capital of Canada, and for some years just after the second world war, a globally significant source of uranium. This article covers the economic impact and the environmental and health legacies of mining uranium. CT55555(talk) 15:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Ling

• Reynolds, Nila (1979). Bancroft. A Bonanza of Memories. The Bancroft Centennial Committee. pp. 184–193, 223. 'Missing ISBN. So I go to worldcat and copy/paste aythor, date, title (or some variation thereof— sometimes including the date or author's first name brings up no results). So I get this. Two different versions. What to do? In this case we're lucky: One version has 150 pages, and the other has 250 (which strikes me as a big difference). Your cite is from pages beyond 150, so voila, we have oclc=8091686.
• [Oh by the way, you used {{cite journal}} on a different source that was actually report... I fixed that too.] § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 17:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• Parsons, Michael B.; Friske, Peter W. B.; Laidlow, Allison M.; Jamieson, Heather E. (2014). I've never seen anyone cite an abstract page before. In this case, the full text of the paper is available on researchgate.net and The Government of Canada. The original Master's degree thesis by Allison Marie Laidlow is available online too... I found that out via google.Atlantic Geology is missing an issn, which you can find via Wikipedia. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 18:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• What makes "Creation/Evolution Journal" WP:RS? § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 18:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  1. Thanks for the fixes! I added the ISSN and changed the url for Parsons etc.
  2. Regarding Creation/Evolution: It is published by National Center for Science Education which seems to be a reputable non profit with a 42 year track record of (their words) "Promoting science education". The org is lead by environmental scientist Ann Reid. I see the publisher is quoted in news as an expert on matters of climate science and education, examples: 1 2 It seems (CUNY source here) that the paper cited, was originally published in the Journal of Geological Education, and that seems credible, but I could not verify it. This was a point of discussion between the GA reviewer @Reidgreg and I, you can see our chat about that [[2]] so, for what it's worth (this is only my second FA review, I am not sure of norms) I took that process to mean at least an unconnected editor thought it was OK.

  CT55555(talk) 22:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  I found it at Taylor & Francis here [3] but I only have access to the abstract. Jeffery Richard Wakefield (1988) The Geology of Gentry's “Tiny Mystery”, Journal of Geological Education, 36:3, 161-175, DOI: 10.5408/0022-1368-36.3.161 – Reidgreg (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• Another wonderful tool: Google Scholar, says: "Wakefield, Jeffery Richard. "The Geology of Gentry's “Tiny Mystery”." Journal of Geological Education 36.3 (1988): 161-175." So now you can go to either your local library or WP:RX (be sure to specify that it's in Taylor & Francis in the subject line) or whatever, get a copy of that. Then you verify the data is all there, change to the corresponding page numbers, and you're bullet proof. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 22:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for the tip. I wasn't aware of WP:RX. I've sought help there. CT55555(talk) 23:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  Mdaniels5757 states "It appears to be in that journal, but I don't have direct access. The citation is above." and provides the citation:

  Wakefield, Jeffery. "The Geology of Gentry's "Tiny Mystery"". Journal of Geological Education. 36 (3): 161–175. doi:10.5408/0022-1368-36.3.161.

  Noting that the CUNY source says this, and @Reidgreg's comment above, do you consider this sufficiently confirmed, @Lingzhi.Renascence? CT55555(talk) 23:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  • You either need to verify that the creation/evolution journal is WP:RS, or you need to switch to the other journal. Reliability is not associative. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 01:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

    Got it. Have switched it for the Journal of Geological Education one. CT55555(talk) 01:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

    Cited four times. Page numbers? While we're at it, page numbers for any publication that actually has page numbers (sometimes full-text on the web may not have page numbers)... [Years ago, I threw a tantrum because the archaeology folks were listing huge page ranges, like entire chapters or something. I lost the argument, they won, because no one wanted to alienate an entire wikiproject. As is so very often the case, please refer to Ling.Nut's Law. So you can try to skip page numbers, if you have an entire wikiproject covering your back.]  § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 02:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

    Thanks for your advice on this, but I'm now confused on two points:

    1 - if you are saying the range of page (161-175) is OK, but I think you are not. And yet, I don't know how to resolve that. Because I read the Creation/Evolution version, and someone else verified that "it seemed" to appear in the Journal of Geological Education and it seems implausible that CUNY are incorrectly saying it appeared there first. So I don't know how to fix that, the library I have access to doesn't have access to Journal of Geological Education that far back and I can't find it on the Wikipedia Library either.

    2 - What more I'd need to do to verify that Creation/Evolution Journal us a reliable source. I think and hope I made a reasonable argument for that above. Did it convince you? What more would I need to do to get to that point? CT55555(talk) 03:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

    Sorry I am so confusing. Answering all questions as best as I can:

    1) The page range is not OK with me, but if you can find six or seven people from a relevant wikiproject to bang their collective shoes on the table, you will probably win.

    2) You can request the journal at WP:RX. The subject line of your request is not actually correct. We don't need to verify that it appeared in Journal of Geological Education. We know it did. We need to verify that the specific info you cited from the (potentially) unacceptable journal is also in the acceptable one, and if so, on what pages? [I have many times seen cases where a peer-reviewed and a non-peer-reviewed version of the same paper exists. Very often, the peer-reviewed one will hedge, correct or even delete some assertions from the non-peer-reviewed one].

    3) The question that is hardest for me to answer is, is that first journal RS? Just because journalists cite it doesn't mean jack to me (at least). The paper was cited 21 times in its peer-reviewed version, but alas, many of those cites are embedded in the creation/evolution controversy. The citing sources may not be RS, or they may just be citing it in the context of a statement that "one example of a controversy is...". Or.... etc.

    4) So to summarize, you have 2 paths: get the peer-reviewed version to satisfy my standards, or bypass me by getting at least 2 or 3 people to agree with you that the other one is RS. Choose whichever one is easier. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 03:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

    Thanks for the clear explanation.

    1) I won't try to round up a gang of supporters, that doesn't seem like the right way to do things, and seems like I'd need to WP:CANVAS. I'd rather assume your suggestion is the best way forward, as I'm new to this and I assume you are not.

    2) I've corrected my request at WP:RX. Fingers crossed.

    3) A journal published by a respectable scientific focussed organisation seems like the hallmark of a reliable source to me. Scientific American and Education Week (and others I saw) all using it as a source for scientific issues seem to support that too. I think this is about the journal being reliable, rather than citations of the specific article. I'm wondering why we'd doubt it's reliability. It's a journal published by a scientific organisation. Why would we doubt its reliability? Am I naive? Missing something?

    4) Basically I'm trying both paths, trying to get the article, with no idea how likely that is (first time at WP:RX) and also hopefully advocating fairly that the Creation/Evolution Journal is a WP:RS. Convincing? All fingers crossed, lol. CT55555(talk) 04:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

    I'm happy to report that I've got a copy of the original publication and added page numbers. Thanks to @Mdaniels5757 for their support! CT55555(talk) 15:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

(←) } I'm happy to hear your happy report... I think there may or may not be a need for a nontrivial amount of elbow grease applied to the task of using page numbers (whenever possible) to the cites here. I very often offer to convert articles' cites into {{sfn}} and {{sfnm}} for that purpose. I am strange: I enjoy such conversions. It's like the feeling you get when you've got a messy closet and you clean the whole thing. So I will do that for you, if you wish. I do have stacks of final exams to grade, and my own wiki stuff going on too. But I could get to it in a couple days.... If you wish. But you would have to hunt down every page number. Let me know.. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 16:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I am not good with the citation formats, so for me this is a necessary-evil type of task, I very much dislike it. So I am delighted with your offer to help and keen to collaborate to get this article to the right standard. CT55555(talk) 16:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I thought business meetings and visiting in-laws were the only two necessary evils, since both involve getting together to accomplish nothing except the ability to tell everyone we got together. :-) You could get a start by finding the page number of every cite that has a page number. You can write it down somewhere or something. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 21:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I might be missing something. Did you mean find the page number of every cite without one? CT55555(talk) 22:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I am thinking of "has a page number in the original source", and you are thinking "has a page number in the citation in the WP article". I mean, if it does have the former but doesn't have the latter. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 22:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Got it. I have now added page numbers to everything that I think has pages numbers. Phew! CT55555(talk) 16:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Note Ling left a message on my talk page to note that they are currently travelling and unable to reply/update/comment. CT55555(talk) 19:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Updated Note: Ling left an updated message on my talk page saying that health issues are delaying their reply, and seem likely to do so for some days at least. CT55555(talk) 13:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Update: Quoting @Lingzhi.Renascence Hi again. I am not editing Wikipedia anymore. Consider any comments I made on your FAC to be closed as resolved. (diff) CT55555(talk) 01:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• There are a huge number of images relative to the length of the article, which is causing layout issues

• The "☢ indicating locations" are really not visible at the given image size

• File:Madawaks_Mine_1962.jpg is missing a US tag, but why specifically is it believed to be PD in Canada? Ditto File:Bicroft_Uranium_Mine,_1956.png, File:Arthur_Shore_1955.jpg, File:Bulldozer_at_Faraday_Mine.jpg

• File:Headframe,_July_30_1956,_Canadian_Dyno_Mines_Limited,_Cardiff_Township.png is missing a US tag. Ditto File:Headframe,_Greyhawk_Uranium_Mine,_11_July_1956.png

• File:Central_Ontario_Railway_in_Bancroft.jpg: source link is dead, missing a US tag

• File:Henry_Joseph_Maloney_portrait_photo.jpg needs a stronger FUR

• File:A_miner_hauling_a_car_of_silver_radium_ore,_340_feet_below_the_surface,_Eldorado_Mine_of_Great_Bear_Lake.jpg: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The GA review did highlight that maybe there are too many photos. I think this confirms that I should remove some of them. I can do that.

More importantly, you have just highlighted that I've made a grave error. I have uploaded a number of images based on an incorrect understanding of PD in Canada, thinking that anything over 50 years old was good, but a more careful reading of the criteria just made me realise that this is wrong and that things need to be pre-1949.

I don't know why anything would have a US tag, these are photos taken in Canada, but the fact that you are asking me this, hints that maybe I'm missing something?

I think I urgently need to delete some files due to my erroneous understanding of PD Canada! I've just read how to speedy delete the files from commons, but will pause briefly in case I'm in error again. Can you confirm, I've messed up right, and should get these speedy deleted ASAP? CT55555(talk) 03:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Any image hosted on Wikimedia Commons needs to be free/PD in both its country of origin (in this case Canada) and also the US. There are three pathways by which an image could be PD in Canada: Crown Copyright published over 50 years ago, non-Crown Copyright photo created before 1949, or author died before 1972. If you can demonstrate any one of those three for the images above, and also demonstrate that they are in the public domain in the US, they can stay where they are. If you can demonstrate they are PD in the US but not Canada, we have the option of hosting locally - images hosted on English Wikipedia need only be free/PD in the US, not country of origin. If you can demonstrate neither PD in the US nor PD in Canada, they need to be deleted unless there is a case for fair use. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

These images are likely all privately published, all from around the 1950s, I have no way to tell when the photographer(s) died, but on the balance of probabilities, probably not before 1972. It is clear that I've completely misunderstood the rules and had accidentally been using a shortcut of (more than 50 years old). I'll do some speedy deleting. I've also already removed various photos from the article, obviously I'll remove the ones with the copyright issues very shortly. CT55555(talk) 03:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Hmm...and now I am wondering about fair use. I don't have experience in arguing things are fair use unless they are logos, book covers, and photos of deceased people. Is it credible to argue fair use for photos of old mines? CT55555(talk) 03:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Theoretically you can have any image as fair use as long as a credible case could be made for each of the criteria. That being said, the more non-free images you want to include, the stronger the rationale needs to be for each - and you've already got one which isn't so strong. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Update: the Bicroft mine photo was published by the Geological Survey of Canada, a government agency, the PD Canada tag is correct. But I think the only US tag for non-US photos is PD-US-expired-abroad and it has a higher bar, so that seems to rule it out, but it seems illogical to even consider the Canadian rules if the US ones will trump them anyway, I feel like I'm missing something again. Sorry. Maybe I should just focus on a fair use rationale? CT55555(talk) 04:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

That's not the only tag available - take a look at commons:COM:HIRTLE. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

OK. Great news. The black and white images of the mines were all published by a government agency. The correct tag is now in them PD-Canada-Crown and there is a letter on file saying the URAA doesn't apply and therefore I think that covers things in USA too...? CT55555(talk) 04:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I really appreciate the guidance you've given me so far. I will need to use that to change some tags on images I've uploaded that don't (or not longer) appear in this article. Since your first review, I've improved some tags, and removed most of the photos. Is the current situation with the images satisfactory now? CT55555(talk) 19:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria just a ping about my question from 10th...? CT55555(talk) 19:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Correct, Canadian Crown copyright-expired works are fine.

Regarding your question from the 12th: some images are missing alt text, and File:Canada_geological_map-WCSB.JPG needs a source for the data presented. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Noted. Other feedback prompted me to remove that image and add another. Alt text is needed and I'll do that soon, once we get consensus on which image to use. CT55555(talk) 18:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Update, have added alt text to all images. CT55555(talk) 20:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria do you consider all image-related issues resolved? CT55555(talk) 14:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Suggestions from Larataguera

Lead

• It isn't until the very end of the first paragraph that I'm clear whether the area is actively mined. The first sentence(s) could say, "Bancroft is one of two major uranium producing areas in Ontario. It was mined from 1956–1964 and again from 1975–1982".
  The additional background about the Canadian Shield and the seven other areas in Canada should come in a later paragraph, after the scope of the article is well-defined and the notability of the subject is established.
• There's some redundancy with the sentence, Mining resumed when uranium prices rose during the 1970s energy crisis, but this was not long lasting, because we already established that there was a second mining period from 1975-82.
• $1,500 million -> $1.5 billion

Uranium mining

• Placement of the first {{main article}} template is awkward, because it makes me think that Fission Mine would summarise the content of this whole section. I suggest removing it, and link Fission mine at first mention.
• The sentence Uranium mining operations in the Bancroft area were conducted at four sites, beginning in the early 1950s and concluding by 1982. is very clear and concise and probably belongs in the lead. Possibly as the first sentence.

General comments I do not find any major gaps in information missing from this article. Larataguera (talk) 03:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for this feedback.

On the Lead: I've made changes #1 and #3 to the lead. I'd like to push back on #2. One on hand, I agree. On the other hand, a lot of dates are presented to the reader and I think this reminder/context is helpful. Would you support me keeping that sentence as it is, at least finding a different way to say it? CT55555(talk) 13:11, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

On Uranium mining I've made the first change. The edits I made to the lead earlier, I think, solve the issue raised in #2. Do you agree? CT55555(talk) 13:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

It's just a suggestion, but I still feel like the redundancy is awkward. How about this?:

Uranium mining around Bancroft, Ontario was conducted at four sites, beginning in the early 1950s and concluding by 1982. Bancroft was one of two major uranium-producing areas in Ontario, and one of seven in Canada, all located along the edge of the Canadian Shield. In the context of mining, the "Bancroft area" includes Haliburton, Hastings, and Renfrew counties, and all areas between Minden and Lake Clear. Activity in the mid-1950s was described by engineer A. S. Bayne in a 1977 report as the "greatest uranium prospecting rush in the world".

As a result of activities at its four major uranium mines, Bancroft experienced rapid population and economic growth throughout the 1950s. By 1958, Canada had become one of the world's leading producers of uranium; the $274 million of uranium exports that year represented Canada's most significant mineral export. By 1963, the federal government had purchased more than $1.5 billion of uranium from Canadian producers, but soon thereafter the global supply of uranium increased, prices fell and the government cancelled all contracts to buy. Mining resumed when uranium prices rose during the 1970s energy crisis, but this second period of activity ended by 1982.

Three of the uranium mines are decommissioned, and one is undergoing rehabilitation. A twofold increase in lung cancer development and mortality has been observed among former mine workers. Bancroft continues to be known for gems and mineralogy.

Larataguera (talk) 03:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I like it. I've made the change. CT55555(talk) 14:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't have any further concerns or suggestions. This article looks good to me. Larataguera (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• Hi Larataguera, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

  I tend toward support for this article. In my earlier review, I tried to ensure that the article was complete, and I didn't find any glaring omissions. I did not review the information about geology, and would defer to other editors who have commented below on that part of the article.

  The prose is also pretty good. There remain a few places where prose could probably be improved, notably:

  • Bancroft is one of only five major locations in the world where uranium is extracted from intrusive rocks – the others being Rössing uranium mine, Trekkopje mine, Utah, Twin Buttes, Ilimaussaq deposit and Palabora. Globally, uranium is mined from intrusive rock at seven different locations with Bancroft being the only one where it is mined from intrusive rocks of the pegmatite type. Are there five or seven other such locations? Is it 5 major and 2 minor? Can these two sentences be consolidated and clarified? Possibly: "Uranium is only mined from intrusive rocks at (5? 7?) locations in the world, and Bancroft is the only location where it is mined from intrusive rocks of the pegmatite type". (Perhaps with the list of other locations in a footnote?)

  Otherwise, a few increasingly minor edits like:

  • Aside from uranium, the Bancroft area and its mines produced sought-after gemstones... -> "Aside from uranium, mines in the Bancroft area produced sought-after gemstones...."

  but nothing I'd hold up the FA review over. Hope this helps. Larataguera (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks. Both very good suggestions:

  1. I went back to the original sources and rewrote that section, without the incorrect/contradictory information. Thanks!
  2. I fixed the second part.

  CT55555(talk) 18:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Maxim

I have considerable concerns related mostly to criterion 1c, with regards to both portions of that (thoroughness of survey, and use of high-quality sources). I noticed on an initial read that many subsections had choppy paragraphs (e.g. in Legacy), which led me to check what literature was already cited and what literature could be potentially cited. I'm reviewing from this version.

For existing sources:

• What makes reference 4 (Reynolds, 1979) a high-quality reliable source particularly for geologic information? It is used to cite Volcanic eruptions had spouted through sediments, recrystallizing them into layers of banded gneisses – incorporating limestone, graphite, gabbro and diorite – rich in iron and other dark minerals.. The statement is outright wrong: gneiss is a high-pressure, high-temperature metamorphic rock, whereas the sentence loosely describes contact metamorphism.
• Reference 8 (Wakefield 1988): what makes this a high-quality reliable source for the information that is being cited? The article appears to be a refutation of a Creationist geological paper. My biggest concern is with this article is that it is used to cite dates, but the article cites R.M. Easton (1986a,c) for those, which are a Ontario Geological Survey open file report and a Geological Association of Canada Special Paper respectively.
• Reference 12: what makes world-nuclear.org a high-quality reliable source?
• Reference 18: this appears to be a conference poster, and not a scientific journal article
• References 19 and 40 are MSc dissertations which are generally not reliable. However, if a scientific journal article came out of such a dissertation, then I would encourage citing that. I tried searching for articles coming out of the Laidlow dissertation but I only found conference papers.
• Related to above, reference 41 is cited as a dissertation but it seems to a link to a technical report with a broader authorship.
• References 27 and 29 are duplicates.

I'm curious whether significantly more can be added about the geological and environmental significance of uranium in the Bancroft area. From a quick search, as examples:

• Trace element mobility in mine waters from granitic pegmatite U–Th–REE deposits, Bancroft area, Ontario in Applied Geochemistry discusses mobilization in groundwater of radioactive species in the Bancroft region
  • There is also a Geological Survey of Canada open file from the same authors: Groundwater chemistry of uranium-thorium-rare earth element deposits, Bancroft area, Ontario
• U, Mo, and REE mineralization in late-tectonic granitic pegmatites, southwestern Grenville Province, Canada in Ore Geology Reviews may be a particularly good source for geological setting among other things
• Hydrogeochemistry of uranium in the Bancroft-haliburton region, Ontario, Geological Survey of Canada open file
• Development of Geochemical Exploration Methods For Uranium, Bancroft and Elliot Lake, Ontario, Geological Survey of Canada open file
• Anhydrite-pegmatite uranium ore at Bancroft, Ontario in Economic Geology

Overall, I find the article is a good start, and it covers the details of the various individual mines well. That said, it could be fleshed as to its geological setting, geological significance, and environmental significance, and there is scientific literature on these subjects that is not used. I also think that the choppiness of the prose in some sections would be more readily fixed through addition of content, as opposed to copyediting. Maxim (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Reply part 1 of 2 (focus on critique).

Thanks for the work. I struggled to answer some of these points, as they are critique, but I'm not sure what the right path forward is. i.e. are these definitely errors, or are you open to being persuaded? I found this feedback more difficult than earlier, because not all of it leaves me certain of next steps. I've therefore pushed back on a few points, assuming you're open to being persuaded, but I hope I don't seem argumentative, I'm new to this and if something is obvious to you to be wrong, please say and I'll focus on fixes, rather than debates.

1 - What makes history columnist and writer Reynold's a reliable source Until your comments, it seems like a good source. It's a book by an established author (Reynold's also wrote In Quest of Yesterday, 1968) so has a track record of history writing. However, most of the book is about local 20th century history, rather than geology. I don't think she is a geologist. I'm not sure how to respond to you saying it is wrong. Is there a source that says what is right, then I could use that?

2 - What makes Wakefield 1988 a reliable source? Likewise it seemed reliable. I had an extensive conversation above with where another editor obliged me to get a copy of the paper and change the citation to the original publication because they considered it was more reliable. I thought our logic on wikipedia was that it's OK for reliable sources to use primary sources, the reliability of a source tends to be that they take primary sources and are assumed to check them. i.e. I thought the Journal of Geological Education is a reliable source for geology issues.

3 - The World Nuclear Association is an international organisation that represents the nuclear industry. It's mission is to to provide authoritative information. It has a 22 year history I'd not consider it a reliable source for controversial claims, or anything that was pro-nuclear industry. But for the purposes of saying where certain types of mines, rock, ores are. I've read a lot about the mining in the area and nothing cited here seems to disagree with anything else.

4 - It seems like a conference poster. You are surely correct about this. Does it mean I should change the type of citation? Or does it mean you question the reliability?

5 - On citation 19, I can probably get other sources, the claims are not controversial. I'll work on that. User:Reidgreg had an extensive conversation about the reliability of a this master's thesis during the GA review. I think we agreed that Master's thesis are generally not reliable, but I showed that four academic publications cited it, I argued that was uncommon for a Master's thesis. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004896971732154X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0265931X16301588 https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/403374/ https://search.proquest.com/openview/c65c823b5613d79b21f402b3e36db7ff/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750) The author is an award winning geologist who worked for the Ministry of Natural Resources https://www.cim.org/past-award-winners/michel-proulx/

6 - So are you OK with citation 41?

7 - duplicate citations fixed.

Reply part 2 of 2, new sources, coming soon. CT55555(talk) 11:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

As I work though part 2 of my reply and improve as per your suggested sources, I note the Ontario Geological Survey report you link to cited the Proulx Master's thesis that you questioned reliability of, which I think/hope bolsters my argument that it is more credible that most Master's thesis. (Groundwater chemistry of uranium-thorium-rare earth element deposits, Bancroft area, Ontario, page 1) CT55555(talk) 15:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Part 2 of 2. I've aded content from the suggested sources, mainly the first two. I found the other ones mostly hyper specific and was worried I'd take the article down rabbit roles.

What is unresolved is the point about the accuracy of Reynolds. Part of the geology of this article was helpfully improved by User:GeoWriter, who appears to be a subject matter expert, so any help you want to lend here, GW, is of course very welcome. CT55555(talk) 17:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

For Reynolds, I think she is plenty reliable for the historical aspects of the article, but as far the geology goes, assuming that the statement about gneiss is an accurate paraphrasing of the source text, then it seems to me to be a fairly basic mistake that someone with some knowledge of geology wouldn't make. The broader geological background (something that would be need to properly place the subject in context per 1b) would involve doing more work to give more geological context for these deposits. As a starting point, you have identified the Grenville Province although it's not really explicit that the Bancroft area is indeed underlain by Grenvillian rocks. To go in further detail, perhaps a starting point is Geologic transect across the Grenville orogen of Ontario and New York (Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences) which discusses the Central Metasedimentary Belt and the Bancroft Terrane,

The Journal of Geological Education is a journal of pedagogy in geology. Provided it has a formal peer review process, it would be more rigorous as to the pedagogical aspect, and less so about the specifics of Bancroft geology. Also of note is that this paper is cited mostly by papers related to the Creationism debate, which in my opinion isn't germane to this article. It would be useful to go to the original paper for example, for the radiometric dates. You would then we able to cite which technique(s) was/were used and perhaps the age uncertainties. Additionally, those technical reports would be a good springboard to flesh out the geological setting of these uranium deposits.

For the conference poster, there is a very good chance that it isn't really peer-reviewed. Typically one submits an abstract to a conference, where it is accepted or rejected, after which a poster or oral presentation is made. There isn't further "review" after the abstract stage. Often times, a conference presentation can be a stepping stone towards a formal paper in a journal, so if a related paper never really materialized, then it may or may not be suspect (e.g. the work wasn't strong enough to be published, or a graduate student graduated, found a job, and moved on with life). I wouldn't consider a poster a high-quality reliable source.

I'm OK with citation 41 as a source, but the citation itself would need to reflect it's a technical report and not a thesis.

Another comment: the geological map File:Canada geological map-WCSB.JPG highlights the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin which isn't relevant to the article. If including a geological at a comparable scale, it would be better to have one of the Grenville province, that is, focusing on Eastern Canada more than anything.

I am wondering if the title of the article does not entirely reflect its present scope. To me, it's more History of uranium mining in the Bancroft area, as the geological and environmental aspects are somewhat secondary in the current presentation, and are not as fleshed out as the history of who staked what claims in the area. Maxim (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to number these points so I can reply to them individually:

1. Reynolds accuracy.
2. Need for broader geographical context
3. Is Journal of Geological Education peer reviewed?
4. Need to go to original article for dates and more info
5. Conference poster reliability
6. Citation 41 formatting
7. Better map needed
8. Title of article

CT55555(talk) 17:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

On 3 the journal, all Taylor and Francis journals (which this is) are peer reviewed see here and specifically here CT55555(talk) 17:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

On 7, I've changed the map CT55555(talk) 17:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

On 8, I agree. I thought a lot about this early on and I think I originally named (or imagined naming) the article like that. I think I then made the more holistic name, as some of the issues are current, so "historical"? But I guess yesterday was history, so maybe this is OK. CT55555(talk) 17:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

On 5, I have removed the conference poster as a source, I sourced the info instead from the paper you suggested above, which had a very slightly different quantity of ore from Bicroft Mine, so have updated that. CT55555(talk) 18:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I've fixed citation 41 (now 40) format from thesis to report. CT55555(talk) 18:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

In summary, I think I've addressed all issues except:

A - Reliability of Reynolds, noting conversation below

B - Need for wider geological scope, as that is also relevant to conversation with GeoWriter below, and the naming of the article, and also I just need 48 hours to think, read, see what I can improve. CT55555(talk) 18:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Reynold's inaccuracies are now fixed, thanks to @GeoWriter

Article rename: I'm open to this, not sure what to do in the context of this being a good suggestion, but implied comfort with the status quo from others, no other agreement or disagreement from others...currently waiting to see what others say, or advice if you think I should/must make the change now? CT55555(talk) 13:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it may be a good idea to wait for more reviews. With the current title and scope, I would reserve judgment on the question of whether the article meets 1b and 1c, that is, a solid "neutral" in Wikipedia jargon. :-) Maxim (talk) 20:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Does it follow that if we changed the title, you would think it passed the FA criteria? CT55555(talk) 22:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

@Maxim a gentle ping about the question above. CT55555(talk) 14:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd be still curious to see more reviews. I'm not convinced a rename is the most appropriate solution, although it is a thought that occurred to me. Maybe it's a question of article organization, but still, I think a fresh set of eyes would be better than mine at this point. Maxim (talk) 12:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Comments from GeoWriter

I agree with Maxim's criticism of the text "Volcanic eruptions had spouted through sediments, recrystallizing them into layers of banded gneisses – incorporating limestone, graphite, gabbro and diorite – rich in iron and other dark minerals.[4]: 184". This text is incorrect because volcanic eruptions would not form gneiss. How close is the wording of the Wikipedia text to the text in the cited source? Would it be possible to quote the text from the cited source in this review discussion to enable us to determine what may be wrong in the source and what may be a misunderstanding of that source? GeoWriter (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

"Minerals which in other part of Ontario lie hidden so deep in the earth's boson as to be beyond the reach of even twentieth century technology, in the Grenville Province of North Hastings are in places exposed and easily obtainable. The very rocks, in origin metamorphic and long ago invaded by intrusive magma, the curse of road builders and ambitious farmers, were early recognised by surveyors and geologists as holding great promise of future mineral discoveries.

Ancient glaciers, once a mile high, gouged away soil and rock repeatedly until the very heart of volcanic mountains were exposed. From earth's seething core a fantastic variety of molten minerals and non-metallics once bubbled forth under press to penetrate crevasses and crannies in the PreCambrian granite. These provided the precious sauce on Bancroft's very special nature sundae, the jewels in a treasure chest of more than 1,600 identified and collectible minerals and non-metallics to be found within a 50 miles radius of the village.

Rock formations exposed in Bancroft area vary from volcanoes which erupted on an ancient sea floor after the earth was born; through sediments recrystallized into alternating layers of banded gneisses; limestone formed in a shallow, warm, sea basin (later recrystallized into marble) whose graphite may indicate the presence of early marine life; masses of gabbro and diorite producing iron and dark minerals; the magic band of intrusive magmas swen with nepheline syentic rocks stretching from Jewellville to Gooderham, and the balance, a billion year old formation, mainly feldspar and quartz." p184 CT55555(talk) 17:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the quotation. The source seems geologically quite reasonable (despite being the most purple prose on a geological topic I've seen in a long time). I suggest that the Wikipedia article's text should be changed from "Volcanic eruptions had spouted through sediments, recrystallizing them into layers of banded gneisses – incorporating limestone, graphite, gabbro and diorite – rich in iron and other dark minerals.[4]: 184" to "During the Grenville orogenies, sedimentary rocks were transformed by heat and pressure into banded gneiss and marble, incorporating gabbro and diorite (rich in iron and other dark minerals).[4]: 184". GeoWriter (talk) 23:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks. I've made this change. CT55555(talk) 13:46, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@GeoWriter do you wish to comment on the article's overall suitability for featured article status? Do you have any other concerns? CT55555(talk) 14:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

A few more comments:

• Geology and mineralogy section

"Bancroft is one of a few locations in the world where uranium is extracted from intrusive rocks – others being the Rössing and Husab mines in Namibia, Kvanefjeld in Greenland, Palabora in South Africa, plus Radium Hill mine and occurrences in the Olary Province of Southern Australia.[8]. 

Globally, uranium is mined from intrusive rock at seven different locations with Bancroft being the only one where it is mined from intrusive rocks of the pegmatite type.[9]: 11". 

I suggest that these two paragraphs should be merged and the repetitive parts should be removed.

• Gems and other resources section

I suggest that the phrase "and the best known samples of molybdenite" should be removed. It adds nothing and makes little or no sense. The preceding phrase ""fine" samples of molybdenite" is sufficient.

• Bicroft Mine section

"In 1952 G. W. Burns, a well-studied amateur prospector from Peterborough, found uranium deposits ...". Perhaps this is a local (Canadian?) phrasing of English but in my region of the English-speaking world we'd usually avoid "well-studied" as an adjective for a person - it tends to be restricted to subjects, objects and people that have been well-studied by people e.g. "gold is a well-studied mineral" or "the works of Shakespeare have been well-studied by scholars", it's not usually a description of a person's own knowledge level. I suggest "well-studied" should be removed. It seems irrelevant anyway because whatever the geological knowledge of Burns may have been, he still discovered the ore deposits (which is the main point).

"fluorspar, an indicator of radioactive geology ...". If you want to add a source reference for the general geological information that fluorspar (i.e. fluorite") is such an indicator, a possible source reference would be Ying et al. (2018) which states "Uranium mineralization is commonly accompanied by enrichment of fluorite and other F-bearing minerals". Of course, this does not specifically support the thinking of Burns himself during his discovery but it does support the general geological point.

• Dyno Mine section

The duplicate wikilink for "allanite" should be removed. It is already linked in the preceding Faraday Mine/Madawaska Mine section.

GeoWriter (talk) 21:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I've done all those edits, except the extra reference for the "fluorspar, an indicator of radioactive geology..." as I considered that fact to be already cited as per the existing citation (see paragraph 2 page 180). Would you agree with that? CT55555(talk) 21:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the existing citation does seem to cover the fluorspar/radioactivity link.

""fine" samples of molybdenite" now needs a preceding "and" because it is now the last item in a list.

A few other things I have noticed:

For consistency of format with other citations in this article, by using unabbreviated page numbers, I suggest that the citations [10]: 177–78  and [10]: 176–77  should be changed to [10]: 177–178 and [10]: 176–177 respectively.

*Health legacy for miners section

"The BMJ (journal of the British Medical Association) reported an increase of lung cancer risk ...". The BMJ merely published the work of the authors. I suggest this text should be changed to: "In an article published in the BMJ (journal of the British Medical Association) in 2016, the authors of the study reported an increase of lung cancer risk ...".

"The study is to be updated in 2023.". This is too definite considering that the cited source (published in 2021) reports "The study, which is now underway and set to end in 2023 ...". It might have ended in 2021 or 2022, or it might not end until 2024, and it might be "updated" by publication in 2024 or 2025 etc. I suggest this should be rephrased to be less certain of timing, perhaps with inclusion of a word such as "due", "expected", "scheduled", or "planned".

GeoWriter (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks again. All very agreeable improvements, which I have now completed. CT55555(talk) 17:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

question to coordinator

Gog the Mild My summary of this so far is that Ling wanted page numbers added to citation and I've done that, but their health leaves it unconfirmed if any further changes are needed. The other unresolved issue that is that Maxim wanted more content on geology, or a title change to "History of..." which I was unsure about, I think we both wanted wider input on that issue, which hasn't arisen. Please note that I did expand the geology somewhat, but not a lot.

So I'm wondering where you see this review process? Is this a stalemate situation (does one neutral review veto) or do you see consensus to promote? I'm wondering if there is anything I ought to do? CT55555(talk) 12:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Worry not CT55555. This is a fairly standard FAC situation. I saw Maxim's comments when they first made them, and have just had a look at GeoWriter's input. I see no need for coordinator input at this stage. One of us will come back to to it if it is still outstanding as and when we are looking to close this nom. It seems eminently resolvable to me. (And possibly already resolved.) I am more concerned at the lack of reviews four weeks in, which is liable to see the nom timed out. So I have added it to the list of source reviews wanted and to urgents. If you feel like placing a polite neutrally phrased request on the talk pages of a few of the more frequent FAC reviewers or on the talk pages of relevant Wikiprojects, or of editors you know are interested in the topic of the nomination, or who have contributed at PR, or assessed at GAN, or edited the article, that may also help. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@User:Reidgreg You kindly put a lot of effort at the GA review process, especially on sourcing. So that leaves me both thinking you are well placed to comment further, and also leaves me reluctant to ask...but as there is a lack of source reviews here... Likewise User:Julius177 I know you took an interest in my articles relating to mining in Ontario, but don't know if you participate in source reviews, but giving you a ping in case you wanted to review? CT55555(talk) 13:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah Reidgreg, it must be about time that you showed us all at FAC what a review should look like. (No sarcasm whatsoever intended.) Gog the Mild (talk) 14:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll try to start on this later today; I'm not a subject-specific editor, though, and my source checks may be limited to the Wikipedia Library. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Reidgreg

As I performed the GAN review, I'm not sure I should have too strong a voice here.

Prose

• located two kilometres east of Wilberforce on lot four, concession 21 of Cardiff township. Is this too much detail? Suggest removing the underlined portion. Also, the two kilometres should be given in miles in parenthesis.

Done CT55555(talk) 11:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Images and table

• I usually feel that images should illustrate the text, and should be placed close to the text that they're illustrating. The geological map might best be placed in the geology section along the bullets for Cheddar, Cardiff, Faraday formations, although that would get it a bit image-heavy with the mineral pictures included.
• The geological map should ideally be redone, perhaps as an SVG with appropriate colour which would be clear at a smaller size and better serve an online encyclopedia. If you don't feel you have the competency to do this yourself, you can make a request at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop.
• The 'location of main mines' map could likewise be improved. At the least, I feel the width should be halved and the caption should specify what is at each of points 1 through 5.
• The image of betafite lacks |alt= text.
• The table 'Major uranium mines int he Bancroft area' doesn't seem to have any order to it. I would suggest ordering them by the year they first opened, alphabetically by the name the mine first operated under, or perhaps by total tonnage.

Done with following notes:

1. I have requested support at the Graphics Lab for the map/image improvement.
2. I reduced the size of the map to just slightly larger than half. I tried various versions and this one seemed optimal. If you think that exactly 50% of the original is important, I will do that, I but assume that reducing it by about half is close enough to your request to be satisfactory. CT55555(talk) 12:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@Reidgreg With thanks to User:Isochrone the map is now improved. CT55555(talk) 12:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Sources

I'm looking mainly at sources not covered in the GAN review. Please note that named references and page numbers (when available) are usually included at FAC, for ease of discussion and verification. I'm not sure if they are required, but you may get more volunteers willing to review your work if you make it easier for them to do so.

• Bancroft: A Bonanza of Memories can be found online here: https://digitalcollections.ucalgary.ca/archive/Bancroft--a-Bonanza-of-Memories-2R3BF1O7WCUJ7.html There's a little button for full screen view. Since this is used a lot, you should probably add page numbers with {{rp}} or similar.

Thanks, I've added the url. The need for page numbers was highlighted above and I added them for every source where they were applicable (i.e. for books, but not for webpages). Were you reviewing an earlier version of this, or am I missing something or have I made an error with the page numbers somwhere? CT55555(talk) 12:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Trace element mobility in mine waters from granitic pegmatite U–Th–REE deposits, Bancroft area, Ontario. Used for The Grenville Province in Eastern Canada has small quantities of uranium-thorium-rare earth element in granitic pegmatite. The occurrence of the rare minerals appear in the greatest abundance around Bancroft area I feel that this paraphrase might be a little strong for the source: "Small, low-grade, granitic pegmatite hosted U–Th–REE deposits are found throughout the Grenville geological province of eastern Canada. They are particularly numerous in the Bancroft area of Ontario". Basically, Bancroft has numerous low-grade deposits. To say it has the greatest abundance would require a complete survey of the entire Grenville Province.

Fair. Have fixed CT55555(talk) 12:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Groundwater chemistry of uranium-thorium-rare earth element deposits, Bancroft area, Ontario. Good, reliable source, focus on subject. Used for Rural Canadians predominantly rely on ground water for drinking water supply. Mining activity expanded fissures and widened the area of groundwater contamination. Public health concerns around groundwater contamination focus on uranium and thorium, plus the presence of decay products of both. The second and third sentences appear to be from this part of the source (page 2): "Mining activities, however, can significantly enhance geochemical reactions and the mobilization of contaminants. This is because mine openings, excavation-related fracturing, and dispersal of fine-grained ore particles within the workings increase the surface area of reaction between groundwater and contaminant-bearing minerals. Discharge of this impacted groundwater from flooded mine workings may then affect surface water quality directly. The principal contaminants of concern associated with the granitic pegmatite-hosted U-Th-REE deposits of the Bancroft district are uranium (U), Thorium (Th), and their radioactive decay products." I think that part is okay. Didn't find anything for the first sentence. For The 2016 paper Trace element mobility in mine waters from granitic pegmatite U–Th–REE deposits, Bancroft area, Ontario noted that 70% of ground water samples taken from diamond drilling holes, mine shafts and adits had uranium concentrates above national drinking water safety standards of 0.02 milligrams per litre. I don't really like inline attribution if it isn't a subjective opinion; readers can check the reference for the title and authors. It might serve the reader better to give context of the paper, like "A 2016 Geological Survey of Canada study noted" or "A 2015 GCS study noted". This is also more concise. The measurement should normally be given parenthetically in imperial/US units {{convert|0.02|mg/l}} produces 0.02 milligrams per litre (1.2×10⁻⁸ oz/cu in), though this does not seem particularly useful.

1. The first sentence (about ground water and rural Canadians) is also from page 2. Quoting the source:"...since groundwater is the sole source of potale supply for most rural inhabitants".CT55555(talk) 12:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
2. Have fixed all other parts of this comment. CT55555(talk) 12:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Unnamed reference Government of Canada/Natural Resources Canada. I guess I let this slide in the GAN review but it should have been tidied before FAC. The source is described at |url=https://geoscan.nrcan.gc.ca/starweb/geoscan/servlet.starweb?path=geoscan%2Ffulle.web&search1=R%3D292249 . The citation should be to that source (Transport and fate of uranium, rare earth elements, and radionuclides from decommissioned tailings at the historical Bicroft Uranium Mine, Ontario). The archive url https://web.archive.org/web/20160319043903/http://gacmacwinnipeg2013.ca/files/gacmac_2013_program.pdf pages 157–158 is good for the abstract. Give the url as http://gacmacwinnipeg2013.ca/files/gacmac_2013_program.pdf and |url-status=dead. After the citation but within the reference, note that this is the abstract only.

Done CT55555(talk) 12:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Goad, Granitic Pegamtites of the Bancroft Area, Southeastern Ontario. I see page 321 with 111,128 pounds of U3O8, 1955-59, but it is not obvious to me that this is for Greyhawk Mine.

1. I just realised I missed adding the page number, which helps me understand your comment above. It is clear if you print pages 320 and 321, or view them side by size, as it is a table that spans two pages and line 93 is for Greyhawk. CT55555(talk) 13:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• 1980 thesis Mohammad Bin Daud A Study of Uranium in Ground Water Around Greyhawk Mine, Bancroft, Ontario. I don't understand what you've done here. The use to the thesis has been expanded to three places, replacing higher quality sources that were present at the GA review, and doesn't seem to actually verify the information.

I'm not sure how we got there either. Assuming I made an error. I have revered back to the better source. CT55555(talk) 13:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to stop here and give you a chance to check the references and clean them up. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks you @Reidgreg, again you have put a lot of effort into this and I appreciate it. I've made all the improvements suggested (noting the that the geological map will need input from others) and the process of making these improvements caught a few other small necessary tweaks that I've done.

Page numbers existed in almost all citations, but there were a few still missing and I've fixed that now.

I hope you find all these improvements satisfactory? CT55555(talk) 15:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: just checking you saw this? CT55555(talk) 11:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I won't be able to get back to this until late next week, at the earliest. Reidgreg (talk) 13:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

seeking a source review

As per a conversation on my talk page, @Gog the Mild: suggested that this review would benefit from one more source review. This table informed me that @Mike Christie, Nikkimaria, and Hog Farm: did the most in December 2022. So if any of you might be interested to support with that, I'd be grateful. In June 2023, @Jo-Jo Emuerus: also did many last month, so hope you also don't mind the ping and request. CT55555(talk) 11:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

The user name was slightly misspelt, so re-pinging User:Jo-Jo Eumerus. Jo-Jo, this one looks right up your street. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Maybe, but I am afraid that last month's reviews were due to some free time in my life that is unlikely to reoccur anytime soon. But I can already say that I wonder why the citations in the lead are needed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I've fixed the lead based on MOS:LEADCITE leaving one citation for the health claim in the lead. CT55555(talk) 17:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Another thing is the "Mineral legacy" section - single sentence paragraphs are bad and I think there is a lack of WP:Due weight here - why does the health and environmental impact get that much more attention than the actual mining output? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

The mining output is well documented in the Uranium Mining section, but I don't think that is a legacy. Uranium was created, used and is now gone. The tailings remain and are more legacy.

The amount of writing for the mineral legacy, environmental and health legacies, I think, matches the volume of sources I found on each. I did find enough to create Bancroft Rockhound Gemboree. I could therefore expand that section somewhat, but I thought the existence of that article discounted the need to do so.

I write a lot about mines (approx 25 articles), and in general I consider it normal for the legacy, some decades later, to be mostly environmental and with regards to uranium mines (I've stared 5 articles and done most of the content on the 12 around Elliot Lake) the health legacy seems to be the other main legacy that reliable sources write about. I think due weight has been applied. CT55555(talk) 20:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I have merged the mineral legacy and environmental legacy sections and made them top level sections. I've made the health legacy section a top level section.

Therefore cut down the sections and also joined the short sentences. CT55555(talk) 20:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Your comments also reminded me of comments that @Reidgreg made at GA review, specifically that there were too many sections. I've since reduced the sections in the article, merging shorter ones. CT55555(talk) 21:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Source review - HF

I'll take this on, but it will take a few days. Hog Farm _Talk 16:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• "Reynolds, Nila (1979). Bancroft. A Bonanza of Memories. The Bancroft Centennial Committee. pp. 184–193, 223. OCLC 8091686. Archived from the original on 9 July 2023. Retrieved 9 July 2023." - old locally published local history type works often aren't of the greatest quality - what makes this high-quality RS?
• " Proulx, Michèle (1997). "The Uranium Mining industry of the Bancroft Area: an Environmental History and Heritage Assessment" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 5 January 2022. Retrieved 27 November 2021." - master's thesis. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP, master's theses only meet the FA sourcing standards in very significant situations, and even PhD theses don't always pass the muster
• somewhat misleading statement here - the table presents ore millage at the "Faraday Mine (1954–1964) Madawaska Mine (1975–1982)" and then gives a total millage figure, implied to be for that entire time frame. Yet, if you look at the source, which is from 1981, you only get millage figures through 1979, not 1982. And also, p. 60 of this source says the mine was reopened in mid-1976, not 1975
• Laidlow is another master's thesis, see the concern about with Proulx
• And see also Mohammed 1980
• " Voisin, Stella (28 July 2007). "Report on The Caring for Kids in Cardiff Research Project" (PDF). Fay And Associates." - unsure about the high-quality RS nature of this source. From what I can tell, this is essentially the research project of a small local nonprofit.

I'll do some spot-checks once these can all get sorted out, but I don't feel comfortable proclaiming that a number of the sources here would meet the FA standards. As a note, I'm not the most familiar with WP:MEDRS and intend to call in another opinion for the medical content sourcing at the end. 17:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the analysis and question.

• On Reynolds, Maxim asked the same above. Paraphrasing my answer: Reynolds is an established columnist and history author, note her 1968 book In Quest of Yesterday described by the local Genealogy Group as "THE definitive book on Haliburton County" and her 1977 book Carlow Township: Before the Memories Fade 2 and ~1980Echoes of the Past

"Quoting User:Maxim above "For Reynolds, I think she is plenty reliable for the historical aspects of the article..." (there was some discussion about her reliability for Geological aspects, but we cleared that up, I think it stemmed from me paraphrasing her badly.

• On Proulx, his reliability has been discussed a few times (at GA review and here). Some notes about that: Ontario Geological Survey cite Proulx on page 1 of Groundwater chemistry of uranium-thorium-rare earth element deposits, Bancroft area, Ontario. So if Canada's national authority on Geology consider him a reliable source, I find that very persuasive. Further to that, Google Scholar shows four examples where papers also cite Proulx (admittedly 2 are themselves also Master's theses), I consider this very uncommon for a Master's thesis. (Sources: Part 1: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=The+Uranium+Mining+Industry+of+the+Bancroft+Area

Part 2: And the four things that cite it are: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004896971732154X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0265931X16301588 https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/403374/ https://search.proquest.com/openview/c65c823b5613d79b21f402b3e36db7ff/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750). I'm basically copy and pasting what I said to @Reidgreg: over here at the GA review. To quote his answer: "The last two of those are theses as well, but I think you've made your case. I appreciate your changing some of them to higher quality sources and I am satisfied to approve the use for those remaining". What I learned since then about the author Michel Proulx is that he is somewhat of an expert in the topic: "He was a geologist and project geologist for the Quebec Ministry of Natural Resources" quoting from 2016 when he won the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum Best Geology Paper award.

In summary, I believe Proulx to be an expert geologist, sufficiently influential to be a reliable source for governments agencies and academics alike. CT55555(talk) 17:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• I have corrected Madawaska Mine reopening date to 1976, thanks for catching that error.
• Great catch on the ore milled error regarding Madawaska. I've fixed that, changing sources to Proulx and therefore covering all years. This also enabled the improvement of being able to separate the ore milled into two time periods.
• Regarding Laidlow. Indeed it's a master's thesis. It supports two claims. 1 that the Madawaska site on a wetlands. Note also this imperfect source supporting that: The Faraday mines region is a rolling landscape—filled with a myriad of small lakes and extensive wetlands but I couldn't find more. So I could perhaps just delete the wetland sentence from the article if you think this is not sufficiently supported?

Laidlaw is also cited for what tailings remain on Bicroft Mine. That is also suported here https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2016/rncan-nrcan/M41-11-24-2014-eng.pdf although User:Maxim did not consider this source reliable as they described it as a conference poster, rather than an academic source. To avoid disagreement, I removed the source, but I will note that it is published by the relevant Canadian federal government agency and seems credible to me. The same data is included (same author) here https://www.imwa.info/docs/imwa_2015/IMWA2015_Laidlow_232.pdf. Note comments above from Ling "The original Master's degree thesis by Allison Marie Laidlow is available online too." I wonder if any of this convinces you?

• Regarding Mohamad (1980). I don't really have much justification/defence of this Master's thesis source. I was encouraged above to expand the environmental impact section and this was the best I could get. If you think this needs to be deleted, I will do that.
• Regarding Fay & Associates. Likewise, I can't rebut your point. It is is indeed a publication published by a small consulting firm written by a educator I tried to find a better source, but I could not. I felt like I had written robustly about some of the negative aspects of the mine and I was keen to make sure the positive was included so was keen to include this. If you think we must delete the content sourced to this, I will do that.
• Regarding WP:MEDRS this was a particular point of discussion between User:Reidgreg here at the GA review. That review felt very robust in terms of WP:MEDRS compliance and note above Reidgreg has looked again (pending conclusions) at this FA review. CT55555(talk) 18:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• • I'm still unconvinced on Reynolds - while she does seem to be an established local historian, the credentials provided are only for hyperlocal groups and thus aren't a great indicator that she rises from the lower bar of "reliable enough to be OK for GA" to stricter standard of "high quality reliable of FA standard". Proulx I will look into more, although it's worth noting that one of the four citations noted was to Laidlow, which should frankly be discounted as it is of lower quality. Am not convinced on Laidlow meeting the WP:SCHOLARSHIP bar and I'm not seeing that the quote from Ling is actually in support of reliability and appears to be more focused on providing the source in an accessible and properly formatted way. You could probably convince me to accept most of these for GA, but Laidlow, Mohammed, and Voisin/Fay are all below the FA standard line, and Reynolds is probably below the cut line. I haven't made up my mind about Proulx yet, but I am open to another opinion from someone like Nikkimaria or Ealdgyth on the others. Hog Farm _Talk 21:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

    I' hope I'm not repeating/bludgeoning, but I wrote a lot above, so in summary:

    1. I don't refute your points on Laidlow, Mohamad and Voisin/Fay. And none of these sources are important, I can remove them and remove a tiny bit of content, the impact is low. All easy fixes.
    2. I hope I can persuade you on Proulx. I think that Ontario Geological Survey using the same source in their publication, and him being somewhat of an expert on the topic is my most compelling counter-point.
    3. Reynolds, indeed has worked on local history issues. But is a multiple published book author on the topic of social/history issues and I'm surprised that a historian tending to focus very locally is perceived as a negative point on her reliability. I'm new to this, but if I had to analyse, I would argue that someone tending to focus on one specific geographic area would have made them more likely to be correct about something than less. I'm new to this process, so am still learning, but would the University of Calgary keeping the book in their collection add anything to boost its importance? (link)

    CT55555(talk) 01:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

    • As to "a historian tending to focus very locally is perceived as a negative point on her reliability", I'm not debating that whatever Reynolds writes in quite likely to be accurate, but the FA standard of high-quality reliable sources requires a bit more of a bar than is probably true. There unfortunately often isn't the sort of attention given to narrow local works to demonstrate that these works actually meet the standard - we can't just broadly accept these works as high-quality RS due to the large amounts of poor quality local history works (see, for instance, basically anything written as local history on topics like Jesse James or Belle Starr). I'll ask around for a third opinion on Reynolds and Proulx. Hog Farm _Talk 00:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

      I've spent more time looking into Nila Reynolds. I've collated what I've found here: Draft:Nila Reynolds. The first citation is a podcast, an interview with a history museum director almost entirely about Reynolds and her unique approach to local history - namely the high number of interviews she engaged in before publishing her most famous book, In Quest of Yesterday. The book cited in this article is also discussed positively in the context of its usefulness for history enthusiasts.

      In my searches, I found her cited in a PhD thesis and in an academic paper. I hope this is helpful. CT55555(talk) 12:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

• Hog Farm asked me to weigh in here. On balance, reviewing the conversation above and the use of these sources in the article, I would largely accept Proulx with the exception of the final citation to it ("The mine succeeded due to a combination of economic factors, including ... a good road and rail network") - the evidence provided is that he could be considered an expert in geology, but this claim is beyond that scope. As to Reynolds, I share HF's view: a decent source but not to the high-quality bar. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for weighing in. I wasn't sure what to do, I'm disappointed that two well respected editors both consider Nila Reynolds not to be a good enough source. I was waiting to see if anyone disagreed with this, but noting the page views here, my optimism is low. I mentioned this predicament on my talk page; it is predicament because the article relies on Reynolds a lot and I'd rather fail FA and keep that content in, than delete lots of useful history just to get this through FA. Discussing this dilemma with User:Lingzhi.Renascence here here made me realise that I maybe ought to try and rebut this analysis, so humbly, here goes:

  Nila Reynolds is an established historian. I have searched the Wikipedia Library, ProQuest and every possible avenue I can pursue to learn about her to form this argument. Every mention I have found on her is positive.

  The article about her details her writing training, she learned under Sylvia Fraser, Scott Young and Austin Chesterfield Clarke at the Haliburton School of Fine Arts. (cited in article about her)

  Her work is noted by Barry Penhale who described Reynold's book In Quest of Yesterday as "critically acclaimed." (cited in article about her).

  Most impressively was this podcast, which is an interview with a history museum director, and is mostly glowing praise for Reynolds and her research techniques. https://www.stitcher.com/show/time-warp/episode/local-history-writer-nila-reynolds-plus-brief-history-of-slavery-in-canada-pt-2-201964754.

  The book cited in this question is considered important enough to be held in the University of Calgary library (link)

  She is an established, published, praised, notable historian. I don't think it is fair or logical to discredit her for writing only about local history, and I think we need to be mindful of the time that these books were written and the disadvantages that women historians faced in those times.

  Nobody has put forward any source that discredits her. I contend that she should not just be treated as equal to any history writer, but superior to most due to her specialisation and the absence of any negative critique. CT55555(talk) 01:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  P.S. I just reviewed WP:USEBYOTHERS which is part of our policy for deciding on the reliable sources. Reynolds is used by others a lot. Don't take my word for it, just search for her name in Google Books and you'll see work by John Robert Colombo citing her, you'll see the book mentioned in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography, the Encyclopedia of Ontario, and Ontario History CT55555(talk) 02:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• @CT55555: and @FAC coordinators: - I think I'm going to have to register an oppose here. Reynolds is used 13 times, and we still have multiple citations to Laidlow and Fay/Voison, as well as stray matters such as the single use of Proulx Nikkimaria challenged above, and then stuff like Mohamad that are used only briefly, but still need replaced. Given the extent of the article's reliance on particularly Reynolds, I suspect that significant rewriting/replacing of sources will be need to a degree that this is probably better worked on outside of FAC, rather than have a significantly changing article up on a single FAC. Hog Farm _Talk 01:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  It will take me just a few minutes to remove Laidlow, Fay/Voison, Mohamad and the Proulx citations, I was waiting to see if anyone disagreed.

  I think the reliance on Reynolds is the only point that I am resisting. We almost had an edit conflict the timing of our comments were so close. Hoping I may have persuaded you above to reconsider Reynolds as a source. Indeed the article is reliant on her and I'd rather fail FA than cut so much useful content from the article. The other stuff is trivial and I'll be happy to edit it out to get this over the line. I'm waiting to see if I can persuade people on Reynolds before taking that step. CT55555(talk) 01:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  I've been keeping one eye on this nom for a while and I'd like to see any further work take place outside the FAC process -- even before this I felt it was looking more like a peer review than a FAC, i.e. much discussion but little support for promotion, and now we're more than six weeks into the nom. Let's pls address outstanding stuff on the article talk page and, if resolved, another run at FAC (after the usual 2-week hiatus) might be in order. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 08:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.