Wikipedia:Peer review/Big Dan Mine/archive1

Big Dan Mine

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been planning to bring this article to FA class. I started expanding and copyediting this article in Feburary and researched the topic as much as I could.

Thanks, Volcanoguy 12:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments: I don't really know much about geology, but in some ways, that may be beneficial to you in terms of making the article more accessible to the masses. Here are my comments.

General:

• My main issue with this article is its organization. It jumps around a lot, both in terms of topic and chronology. The lede also exhibits this jumping around. I would rewrite it something like this:

Big Dan Mine is an abandoned underground mine in Northeastern Ontario, Canada. It is located about 1 km (0.62 mi) southwest of Net Lake and just west of the Ontario Northland Railway in east-central Strathy Township. It is named after Dan O'Connor, a Canadian prospector and businessman who first claimed the site in the 1890s. Mining operations began at the site in the early 1900s, making Big Dan one of the oldest mines in Temagami. Gold and silver were the mine's primary commodities, while arsenic was a secondary commodity. A forest fire destroyed much of the mining infrastructure on the site in 1907. Active mining operations on the site ceased following the fire, but mineral exploration has occurred there periodically since.

The mine consists of two shafts, an open cut and an adit. It is surrounded by a large boreal forest that covers much of the Temagami region. Basalt is the primary rock type at Big Dan, forming part of the Arsenic Lake Formation, the site's major geologic feature. A small zone of deformation intersects the local basaltic bedrock, which probably formed when the area was volcanically active about 2.7 billion years ago.

Done. Insted of "which probably formed when the area was volcanically active about 2.7 billion years ago" I changed it to "which is the location of several minerials" because the former refers to the Big Dan Shear Zone, which has been removed from the article. Volcanoguy 06:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Does it need to be mentioned twice that Dan O'Connor was a prospector and businessman? This rewritten introduction mentions that was a prospector and businessman but is also mentioned in the Background section. Just seems redundant. Volcanoguy 11:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Because the lead is so short, it does seem that these appear pretty close together, but you will almost necessarily have to have some redundancy between the lead and body because the lead summarizes the body. If there were an article on Dan O'Connor, it probably wouldn't be as necessary, but as it is, I'd keep it. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

There is an article about Dan O'Connor here. Volcanoguy 15:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure how I missed that. Too much time on the beach for me last week, I guess. In that case, you could probably shorten "It is named after Dan O'Connor, a Canadian prospector and businessman who first claimed the site in the 1890s." in the lead to "It is named after Dan O'Connor, who first claimed the site in the 1890s." Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Would it be alright for the first paragraph to be split into two smaller paragraphs? It just seems like the later half talks about mining and mineral exploration at Big Dan while the former refers to the mine's location. Volcanoguy 21:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I assume you are talking about breaking the paragraph after Strathy Township. That would make the opening paragraph just two sentences long. I've done that before, but only in a lead section that was much longer than this one. I can't say it would be wrong – a one-sentence paragraph clearly would be – but a later reviewer might flag it. What if you inserted the current second paragraph immediately following Strathy Township and made the rest a new second paragraph? That would have all of the geography and geology stuff together and all the history stuff together. I know geography and geology aren't the same thing, but they are at least related. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 12:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I was actually thinking about breaking it at "Gold and silver...". Volcanoguy 17:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me that the sentence before that (the one that talks about when mining began there) goes more with the mining paragraph than the first paragraph. It might not be so bad if you broke it after the sentence talking about the mine's namesake, though. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 12:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I just split it after the namesake sentence. I'm going to see if I can expand the first paragraph a little bit. Volcanoguy 02:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• There is also a lot of discipline-specific terminology. Not sure how much of that is unavoidable, but look for every opportunity to provide explanatory phrases or pipe wikilinks.

Well, this is an article about mining/geology so it is going to use mining/geologic terminology of course. The terminology present is necessary. Volcanoguy 22:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm striking this because I have no basis upon which to say the terminology is or is no necessary. I know sometimes there is no avoiding the jargon in my discipline either. Just wanted to encourage you to include an in-line explanatory note any time it is possible without compromising the text; it is appreciated by the non-technical reader like myself. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Background section:

• The first paragraph basically lost me throughout. The designations for these claims may be standard notation for people in the discipline, but they mean nothing to the average reader. Information about who owned these claims (if available) would be more helpful than these meaningless numbers.

I deleted most of the claim numbers but kept WD271 because it is a major claim in the area that still exists. Volcanoguy 07:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Much better. I'll take your word for it on WD271 (like I have a basis not to!). A few curious questions that may not even make sense, since I'm way out of my depth on this topic. What makes it a "major claim"? If it's a "claim", I assume somebody owns the claim; who is it? Did the companies who have done exploration in the mine since its closure have to get permission from this claim owner to do their exploration? If so, what were the terms under which the permission was given? I'm asking not only because I don't know, but because if these are even relevant questions, they might or might not give you some more relevant material for the article. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I ment "major claim" as in being a big claim. There are several smaller ones that surround WD271. See the article's talk page about WD271. If you click on the Sudbury Mining Division in the map here then search Strathy as the township you will see WD271 does not show up in the list. But I did find it on the map here and it is obviously a "disposition" whatever what means. So me calling WD271 a claim is most likely a mistake. If WD271 is not a claim and Big Dan is not in a claim then it is obviously not owned by anyone. Volcanoguy 04:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. So can it be a "local claim block" without actually being claimed? If so, I'm willing to strike this, but it might be interesting to follow up and see what a "disposition" is in this context. Could lead to some more information about who, if anyone, owns it. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

No it can't be a claim if nobody owns it. The claim bit has to be replaced with something else. Volcanoguy 16:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll have to rely on you to supply an appropriate alternative. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• "It originally contained a large vein of arsenopyrite, which was the principal ore of arsenic at Big Dan." This seems to belong in the geology section or in the second paragraph of the "Production and exploration" section.

Deleted. Volcanoguy 11:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• You note the size of the site in 1949 and 1965, but the reader has no idea why these dates are important. Moreover, from the lede, we gather that these dates are well after mining operations have ceased. It is not until later that we learn of the companies that began surveys there around these time periods, and then we are forced to make the connection ourselves, as there is no reference between the two. We also don't know why the site shrank by 50 hectacres between 1949 and 1965. This information should probably be brought together, preferably late in the History section somewhere.

Check text now. Volcanoguy 11:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It's clearer now because you've associated the sizes and dates with specific events, which helps tremendously. I'm still curious as to why the size of the mine shrank by two claims between the two dates. Or does this just refer to the area explored at those dates? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's just because of the different owners during those dates. Every owner had different claims as shown by the different claim numbers. Volcanoguy 04:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, that's probably the best we can do, then. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Who constructed the connection to Highway 11? The Canadian government? The company that was exploring the possiblity of mining the site? Also, the article notes that the road was so "automobiles" could access the site, but I would imagine that if mining had begun, it would be more necessary for heavy equipment to use the road.

There was no mining after the mine closed in the early 1900s just mineral exploration. Nevertheless, the source states automobiles. Volcanoguy 08:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

If the source says automobiles, then so be it. Still curious about why the road was built and who built it, but the sources may not give that information either. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

See text now. Volcanoguy 11:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Better. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• The second sentence (and probably the third) of the second paragraph should come first, as it discusses sporadic mining that occurred before the formal opening of a mine in 1906.

Check text now. Volcanoguy 11:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep, good to go. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Big Dan is one of the two mines in Temagami that opened in 1906, the other being Net Lake Mine which ceased operations in 1918." Irrelevant.

I disagree. Big Dan and Net Lake mines have relations with each other since they both opened in 1906, both are in the same community, both mined gold and silver and both are adjacent to Net Lake. Might as well mention when Net Lake Mine closed. Volcanoguy 08:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It just struck me as veering off topic to say when the related mine closed, but hey, it's a peer review. You are free to disagree with/ignore anything you don't find helpful. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you think it would be better to replace that with how far away Net Lake Mine is from Big Dan Mine? For example, "Big Dan is one of the two mines in Temagami that opened in 1906, the other being Net Lake Mine 3 km (1.9 mi) to the north-northwest". Volcanoguy 06:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

That does seem more relevant than when Net Lake Mine closed, yes. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. Volcanoguy 08:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• The third paragraph is more like what I would expect as the first paragraph of a history section. It talks about the mine's namesake and the exploration that apparently predated any mining activity on the site.

Done. Volcanoguy 11:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Big Dan Mine is one of the few Temagami mines named after Dan O'Connor" The few or a few? To me, "the few" implies that there should be more, but for some reason, there aren't. A few just means there are more than one but fewer than several. ;)

It means exactly what it means, more than one but fewer than several. The following sentence states "Others include the Little Dan and O'Connor mines, which were also active in the early 1900s". Volcanoguy 08:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, I was just expecting "a few" as opposed to "the few", but it's not horribly important either way. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

To make things more obvious and less vague, I have changed it to "Big Dan Mine is one of the three Temagami mines named after Dan O'Connor". Volcanoguy 05:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think that sounds much better. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Consider red links for: Little Dan Mine, Iron Lake, Vermillion Lake, Kokoko Lake, Ontario Northland Railway

Is there supposed to be red links in articles with FA status? The Ontario Northland Railway is already linked in the introduction. Volcanoguy 06:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Redlinks in FAs are not problematic. Per WP:REDLINK, "[P]lease do create red links to ... topics which should obviously have articles." If Little Dan Mine is now part of Leckie Mine, that one might just need to be a redirect, but presumably those lakes are notable enough that they could have their own articles, even if they presently don't. I was actually encouraged to add some redlinks to William Goebel during its FAC. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I just don't usually see red links in FA articles. Volcanoguy 04:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. Volcanoguy 06:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Production and exploration section:

• The last sentence in the last section and the first sentence of this one flow pretty nicely. They should probably be part of the same section, if not the same paragraph. Not sure the section break is needed at all. You could just have one History section of several paragraphs.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. There dosen't seem to be anything in the style guide that says there can't be small subsections. In fact, I find it better having subsections because then it is easier to find specific information and it gives the article more structure. The subsections would also be smaller because it is a smaller article. Volcanoguy 04:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I was basically saying that, when I read those two paragraphs together (the last one in the Background section and the first one in this section, they sound like they could naturally form one paragraph or at least could belong in the same section. I'm not necessarily saying anything about the section length being a problem, just that the subject matter doesn't really seem all that different and could easily just make up one big section. It's not a problem, per se, just an observation. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The difference between the last paragraph in the "Background" section and the first paragraph in the "Production and exploration" section is that the former is mostly about an "off and on" gold mining spree in the Temagami area of which Big Dan was part of. It began in the early 1900s and continued throughout the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and 1970s from other mines in the area, well after Big Dan ceased operation. Kanichee Mine, Copperfields Mine, Beanland Mine, Leckie Mine, Hermiston-McCauley Mine and Net Lake Mine were all part of the gold mining spree. Some mined gold as a primary product (e.g. Beanland, Leckie, Hermiston-McCauley, Big Dan) and others mined it as a secondary product (e.g. Kanichee, Net Lake, Copperfields). In contrast, the later paragraph refers to Big Dan's production. It would seem kind of odd merging those two paragraphs together or moving the former paragraph into the "Production and exploration" section because they are distinct but related topics. Volcanoguy 07:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see the difference. Subtle but important. You might consider adding a little more about this "spree", if you can do so without going off topic. Even including the word "spree" or something similar might draw the distinction a little better. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Is there an easier way to describe this in the article? Volcanoguy 12:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

You could lead with an appropriate variant of this sentence, which appears later in the article: "They both correlate with the beginning of sporadic gold mining in the Temagami area, which continued from a number of other mines until the 1970s." I might reword it as "Sporadic gold mining began in the Temagami region of Canada in the late 19th century and continued until the 1970s." Then talk about what triggered the sporadic gold mining in the area. Was there a major find there? Can we get some sense of how many folks headed to the area to attempt mining or how quickly they came and left? Stuff like that. I realize a lot of it might not be available. I'm just brainstorming right now. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Ore was being shipped" why not "Ore was shipped"?

Done. Volcanoguy 06:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• "The shipped ore averaged 0.358 oz (10.1 g) of gold per ton." This may be an unfair question, but is this good? It needs context. I don't know if that's a lot of gold or a little gold compared to other mines. This issue also affects the next sentence.

I'm not sure if that is good or not. If it wasn't any good I would assmue they wouldn't have mined it in the first place. All mines produce different amounts of material. Volcanoguy 06:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. And if it were really good, they probably would have rebuilt the infrastructure that was burned in the fire. I still feel like this needs something. Do we have the same data for the other similar mines you've already mentioned (i.e. Little Dan and Net Lake) just so we can compare them? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I know there is production information for both Little Dan and Net Lake, but its about how much material was mined throughout their productive history insted of how much ore was shipped per ton. Volcanoguy 16:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'm striking this because I don't know what else to suggest, but if you can think of anything that would help give this a sense of perspective for a novice reader, the article really needs it, imo. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• "concentrating gold and silver ore" The non-specialist (i.e. me) doesn't know what this means.

I am not 100% sure what that means either, but it might be the same as "refining gold and silver ore".

Hmm. Is there any way to find out? I think it could be important to either explain the term or use a better-understood synonym. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

After looking up "concentrating" in the dictionary to see what it means in mining, I found this: "to separate (metal or ore) from rock, sand, etc., so as to improve the quality of the valuable portion". It is probably best to replace it with a better-understood synonym. Would "refining" be a better word? Volcanoguy 03:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I found this definition for "refine": "Remove impurities or unwanted elements from (a substance), typically as part of an industrial process." That sounds pretty close to me. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. Volcanoguy 16:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• "The plant was destroyed by a forest fire" This is a little removed from the initial mention of the "mining and milling plant" and directly follows mention of a "small tonnage mill operation". Are those one in the same? If not, were they owned by the same company? Were they both destroyed in the fire?

Yes, it was apparently one whole plant. If it wern't I would assume it would be "mining and milling plants". Volcanoguy 08:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I might consider something like "All of the mining infrastructure was destroyed by a forest fire" to remove the potential ambiguity, but that's just me. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. Volcanoguy 05:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Although ore was shipped from the mine during its years of operation, there is no data available on how much the mine produced." It's already pretty clear that the mine produced and shipped some ore. It doesn't have to be explicitly restated here.

Deleted. Volcanoguy 08:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Since the closure of Big Dan, the adit and mine shafts have been flooded." Naturally, or by man? Do we know when they were flooded exactly?

There is no data available when the shafts and adits were flooded or if it's natural or manmade. Volcanoguy 08:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you don't know, you don't know. I certainly have run into that in articles I've expanded before. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I would think natural because there are swamps at the mine site. But this is something not really important because it is a minor subject. Volcanoguy 07:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It won't stand in the way of GA or FA. Just thought it would be a nice addition if we knew. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• In the last paragraph, you might explicitly explain that these operations are precursors to beginning mining operations. (At least, I gather that they must be.)

There was no mining at Big Dan after 1907. Volcanoguy 11:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I get that. I'm just saying that not everyone knows what a "resistivity survey", "diamond drilling", "line cutting", "geologic mapping", and "magnetometer surveying and sampling" are. I don't know what they are, to be honest, but I gather that they must be tests to determine whether or not reopening the mine would have been worth it. I'm just saying you could explicitly state that so that the reader doesn't have to infer it. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, what would be a good explanation to add in the article? Volcanoguy 03:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe something like, "The company carried out a resistivity survey and 806 m (2,644 ft) of diamond drilling in 11 holes to assess the mine's production potential, but results were not encouraging." I'm making assumptions that those tests are to measure production potential, but something like that. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes they were most likely tests to determine whether or not Big Dan could be reopened because mining companies explore mine sites for ore to mine. Added it into the article. Volcanoguy 07:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Good deal. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Regional terrain:

• Again, I'm not sure the Geology section needs subheadings. It isn't all that long. I also think it should come first, as the geologic features formed before mining operations began (obviously!)

I would think the mining history would come first since mining is the most important subject in the article. Volcanoguy 11:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

We can agree to disagree on that one. I'm used to writing historical biographies, so chronological order usually makes the most sense to me. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• You can probably combine the first two sentences.

I assume you mean the first two paragraphs. Volcanoguy 22:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

No. I thought the first two sentences could go together, something like "Big Dan is situated in the Temagami greenstone belt, a 2,736 million-year-old sequence of metamorphosed igneous and sedimentary rocks that forms part of the much larger Superior craton." The first sentence was kind of short, and using "This is" to open the second sentence seemed a little clunky to me. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. I thought the first paragraph only had two sentences but I looked again and there were three. I guess I was thinking the first two sentences already formed a single sentence. Volcanoguy 00:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• "it might be an isolated southern exposure of the Abitibi Subprovince" Says who? Not trying to be a smart aleck, but if there is doubt about this, we should know who asserts that it is or might be the case so we know how to weight that opinion.

Changed to: "The belt is exposed through the Huronian Supergroup and represents an isolated southern exposure of the Abitibi Subprovince." Volcanoguy 09:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• "spanned from 2,736 to 2,687 million years ago" Compare to the reference to "2.7 billion years" earlier. Why the change from billion to million?

All changed to 2,736 million years ago. Volcanoguy 07:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• The final two paragraphs are all Greek to me, which is to be expected since I don't know much about geology. Still, explanatory text for the novice reader could be helpful/appreciated when appropriate.

Everything is well wikilinked, so uncommon terms can be understood as required. Volcanoguy 08:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't dispute that it's well-linked. As a reader, I appreciate just a little context so I don't have to click every term, but there's not really anything in the style guide that says you have to. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It will probably be better to do this once everything else is organized. Volcanoguy 05:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Big Dan Shear Zone:

• Considering we have an article dedicated just to the Big Dan Shear Zone, much of this information might be more useful there. As it is, very little of it seems connected to the mine, at least from a layman's perspective. If it is more connected than I'm seeing, the connections need to be made explicit.

After thinking about it I agree it would probably be better in the Big Dan Shear Zone article. I just thought it would be appropiate to include in the Big Dan Mine article because at least most of the shear zone appears to be in the mine site and the mined mineralization was situated in the shear zone, hence it would be an important feature of the mine site's geology. Volcanoguy 06:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Parts of it may be. I (and probably most readers) don't know which parts are most relevant to the mining operation. If you can draw explicit connections between the geologic features of the Shear Zone and how they could potentially affect mining (making it easier or harder, aiding or impeding the formation of desireable materials, etc.) it would help. At least copy the information from here to the Big Dan Shear Zone article, though. It's just a one-line stub and could benefit from this information as well. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Moved to Big Dan Shear Zone article. Volcanoguy 06:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Mineralization:

• "However, the gossan capping of the Big Dan Shear Zone distorts its mineralization potental." Again, since I'm not familiar with "gossan capping", I don't know why or how badly it distorts the site's mineralization potential. A short bit of elaboration could help here.

No data available. The given source does not say why or how much the gossan distorts the mineralization potential. Volcanoguy 08:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, but I still don't know why gossan capping affects the mineralization potential, and the "gossan" wiki-article doesn't explain it either. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know too much about gossans myself but according to the gossan article they are intensely oxidized, weathered or decomposed rock, usually the upper and exposed part of an ore deposit or mineral vein. I wonder if the gossan effects the mineralization potential because it is only the surface exposure of an ore deposit. There could be mineralization hidding under the gossan that nobody knowns about. Volcanoguy 05:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, this is just a suggestion for a way to get more material in the article, if you can find it. It's not vital, but it could be helpful if it is available. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I just deleted the sentence. It isn't something important. Volcanoguy 03:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I know you have your sights set on FA status, but unless there is much more here than meets the eye, I think it's going to top out at GA. The mine was really only active for something less than a decade, and it seems as if heavy infrastructure was only present for a couple of years. That's not to impugn the subject, but sometimes, there just isn't much to say. I had the same issue with James Fisher Robinson and George Madison, neither of which have a prayer of going higher than GA, in my opinion. I hope these comments help, even if I'm a little out of my depth. I'll try to watch for your responses in for a few days. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not big on bringing this article to FA status so GA status would be alright with me as well. However, I don't think the amount of information present really matters. The topic just needs to be covered comprehensively and stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail. I have seen smaller articles than this one that are FA status, but I can't recall which ones they are. Despite its name, Big Dan is a small mine and it is quite normal for a small mine to have less information than a big mine. I will comment on your other comments later. Volcanoguy 08:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree about length vs. comprehensiveness. I just wonder how much of the information will be unavailable. To use one of my articles for an example, George Madison spent the bulk of his career as state auditor. Auditors don't typically make a lot of headlines. So, we know he was an elected official for 20 years without knowing much about what he did for those 20 years. That creates a hole in the coverage that, in my mind, makes it impossible to take the article to FA, even though its unlikely that sources are now or ever will be extant to fill that hole. That said, I hope this article will eventually be an FA, if for no other reason than it has a cool name! Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

This is something interesting that could come in use. I found it while searching for "line cutting", which describes it as "straight clearings through the bush to permit sightings for geophysical and other surveys". Volcanoguy 11:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I am interested in why you think this article is unlikely to reach FA. Is it just because you wonder how much of the information will be unavailable? If so, what information are you refering to? Volcanoguy 23:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

My perception is that readers expect a certain volume of information in an FA, even when it isn't reasonable to expect that much to be available. I think many reviewers consider GA to be the domain of short articles, even comprehensive short articles. Consider the feedback I got on my initial GA nom of James Fisher Robinson, as seen on the article's talk page. It was failed because it was short and primarily cited only a few sources. Based on this, the reviewer concluded that it wasn't broad enough even for GA. I had to take it to GAR to get the fail overturned. For that reason, I don't bother with short articles like that at FA. I'd say it's likely that an FA reviewer will say "Are you sure that's all the information out there about this topic?" How are you supposed to answer that? You aren't omniscient, so you can't say "Yes, I am absolutely sure that no other online, offline, or foreign language sources exist on this topic," but nothing short of that may placate the reviewer. All that said, I'd love to be wrong about this article, which is interesting and likely approaching the extent of broadness that the available sources allow. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

But you stated above that there is not lots of information for the James Fisher Robinson article. Also worthy to note is there are more sources in the Big Dan Mine article than in the James Fisher Robinson article and the two articles are about totally different things. Volcanoguy 02:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

From looking at the two articles it seems like there is more information about Big Dan than James Fisher Robinson. Volcanoguy 04:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Won't argue with any of the above, and I'm not making a case that this article cannot be an FA. I certainly wouldn't !vote against it on these grounds; in fact, I don't !vote on FACs anyway. You just asked why I didn't think it would make FA, and I gave you my perception of the process, using Governor Robinson as an example of an article that had shaped that view. I wouldn't expect you to take my comments as the be-all-and-end-all on the matter. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I found some information that can be added in the article: "In 1973, the Teme-Augama Anishnabai applied the Temagami Land Caution, which prohibited all types of mineral exploration in the area. This land claim dispute was in full effect until 1991 when Strathy Township was opened and exploration work could be performed again. Because the Temagami Land Caution existed throughout much of the 1970s and 1980s, Big Dan Mine recieved little attention during a gold exploration boom that occurred during the following decades. It was not until 1993 when Big Dan was explored by Falconbridge Limited. The company performed 10.75 km (6.68 mi) of line cutting and geologic mapping in the area.". Just wondering if you can see something that can be added in the text. Volcanoguy 04:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I think this absolutely belongs in the article. In fact, it probably doesn't qualify as "broad" or "comprehensive" (the respective standards for GA and FA) without it. As presented, I'd say the text needs some in-line explanation of who the Teme-Augama Anishnabai are, since I had to follow the wiki-link to determine whether it was a people, a council of some kind, a government agency, or what. Also, it is unclear what the Temagami Land Caution is. Is it some kind of legal mechanism given to this group of people to protect their lands or what? I see the effect (prohibition of mineral exploration), but not a solid definition of what it is. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the term "Township" as used above, but I would think a township is "formed", "created", or "established" rather than "opened". Unless you are saying it was "opened" for exploration. In that case, specifically say what it was opened for. In either case, state who opened it. Did the tribe with the very long name rescind the Land Caution or did a court rule against them (since you curiously refer to a "land claim dispute" without detailing what the dispute was over)? Last, I assume that Falconbridge's exploration did not yield promising results, since we have no mention of further activity. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Revised text: "In 1973, the Temagami Land Caution was applied by the Aboriginal community of Teme-Augama Anishnabai to protest against development on Crown land in the Temagami area. This prohibited all types of mineral exploration at Big Dan and other mines in Strathy Township. The land caution was in full effect until 1991 when it was ruled out in the Supreme Court of Canada. Because the Temagami Land Caution existed throughout much of the 1970s and 1980s, Big Dan Mine recieved little attention during a gold exploration boom that occurred during the following decades. It was not until 1993 when Big Dan was explored by Falconbridge Limited. The company performed sampling and 10.75 km (6.68 mi) of line cutting and geologic mapping in the area, but no further work was done." How is that? Volcanoguy 23:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Nearly perfect. Would like to know upon what basis the Supreme Court invalidated the Caution, though. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 00:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It was because the Temagami Indians did not have aboriginal title to the land they claimed. Volcanoguy 00:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

How about "The land caution was in full effect until 1991 when the Supreme Court of Canada invalidated the land dispute because the Anishnabai community did not have aboriginal title to the land they claimed"? Volcanoguy 15:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I might suggest "The Supreme Court of Canada invalidated the land caution 1991 when it was discovered that the Anishnabai community did not have aboriginal title to the land they claimed." Just a little less wordy. This is going to make a great addition to the article. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

That wording is much better. I think there should be an article for the Temagami Land Caution. Volcanoguy 16:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. It will really help this article, and it sounds like it was an interesting affair. Sometimes, when you write about one thing, you find another article that really needs to be written so you can get the full picture. That's what happened to me with Old Court-New Court controversy. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I wish I knew more about the land caution because I am not sure if the revised text is accurate. Here it states that the peripheral lands were reopened in 1991 but the caution was not lifted in Strathy, Cassels and Best townships until 1992. Volcanoguy 17:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Here it states that the land caution was still present in 1997. Volcanoguy 17:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

More here. Volcanoguy 17:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd plug what we have now into this article, then go back and change it if necessary. Sounds like you're going to be developing an article – and a right interesting one, at that – on the Temagami Land Claim pretty soon. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Does this work out: "In 1973, the Temagami Land Caution was applied by the Aboriginal community of Teme-Augama Anishnabai to protest against development on Crown land in the Temagami area. It existed throughout much of the 1970s and 1980s, prohibiting all types of mineral exploration at Big Dan and other mines in Strathy Township. As a result, the area recieved little attention during a gold exploration boom that occurred during the following decades. In 1991, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that the Anishnabai community no longer had aboriginal title to the land they claimed. This allowed mineral exploration in Strathy Township once again. However, Big Dan was not explored until 1993 when Falconbridge Limited performed sampling and 10.75 km (6.68 mi) of line cutting and geologic mapping in the area. The Temagami Land Caution was not entirely lifted until 1995 as a result of a court order."? Just trying to clear it up more. Volcanoguy 21:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

This sounds great. The only part I even hesitated a little at was "during a gold exploration boom that occurred during the following decades". It might be that the reader is a little unclear about what the decades follow, but I realize you are trying to avoid repeating "the 1970s and 1980s", which is fine. I wouldn't oppose you adding it as-is. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

How about replacing "following" with "same"? Volcanoguy 16:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

That, or perhaps substituting "those" for "the following". Good suggestion. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Added "Mineral exploration at Big Dan remained idle from the early 1970s to the early 1990s as a result of a land claim dispute applied by Temagami Indians" in introduction. Volcanoguy 19:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's a good idea. In the U.S., we are encouraged to avoid the word "Indian" when talking about the native people of the Americas, since it is technically a misnomer. Many times, that isn't possible. If this is also the case in Canada, you may want to see if you can substitute another accurate word. If not, believe me, I understand. Sometimes, there just isn't anything else that will work. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

It would probably be better to change it as "Temagami First Nations" because First Nations appears to be a commonly used term for these people. Volcanoguy 20:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, there ya go! Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 12:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I added this in the article: "The mined ore was hoisted from the open cut by a skip then dumped into a Blake jaw crusher. It was then dried, passed through rolls and elevated to trommels for sizing. The oversized ore passed down through a fine roll. After the reduced ore fragments passed through rolls, it was then put through three Kriem air separators in the mill. The ore concentrates from these separators were drawn off and bagged for shipping." Volcanoguy 11:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

That definitely clears up the "concentrated" vs. "refined" issue. Again, there is a lot of jargon here, much of which may be unavoidable. Is Skip (container) the proper link for "skip" in this context? I'm also a little unclear as to how "roll" is used here, and there doesn't seem to be a relevant wiki-link. I looked at the article on air separation, but it didn't really help me understand the purpose of passing ore through a "three Kriem air separators". Do we know what these devices did? Is air separation a relevant link anyway? Like I said, I get that there may be no way to simplify this for the non-expert reader, but where we can, we should. It makes the subject more accessible. BTW, this is looking more like a GA to me all the time. Your additional research and responsiveness to comments have benefited the article tremendously. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

When I was reading the source I was thinking maybe "roll" refers to roll crushers. From reading the source and my text it seems like the jaw crusher was used to crush the ore into rough pieces. As far as I am aware of, roll crushers are used to crush moderately hard material into a finer material. "It was then dried, passed through roll crushers and elevated to trommels for sizing" seems to make more sense. And yes Skip (container) is probably the proper link. The other terms likely need articles. Volcanoguy 20:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

"Roll crusher" definitely gives a clearer picture of what's going on. I recommend adopting that language if you are fairly sure it's accurate. I'd also link "skip" as an aid to the unfamiliar reader. If you're able to create an article about the Kriem air separator, that's great. If not, giving some idea of what it contributes to the process would be helpful, if that's something that is available. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Added link to "skip" and replaced "roll" with "roll crusher". Volcanoguy 05:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Good deal. Thanks. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)