|WikiProject Mining||(Rated Start-class)|
Plazak and Vsmith I have recently learned that lists of items that are not too long and could be incorporated into prose sentences and paragraphs are discouraged by Wikipedia style guidelines and GA and FA reviewers. I found the following in the Wikipedia Manual of Style: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists. See in particular the first bulleted item in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists#Bulleted and numbered lists. I see two lists in this article. I feel certain that the first list could easily be transformed into a smoothly flowing sentence, and I think even the second list could be, too. I'd be interested in your opinions as to whether it would be a good idea to attempt to do that for the first list, the second list, or both. Whatever you decide is fine with me. If you'd like me to put them into sentence form, let me know. – Corinne (talk) 02:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Because I put both lists in, I am perhaps biased in their favor. But the first list (5 items) could certainly be put in a sentence without loss of clarity. The second list (7 items), I think would be considerably less clear if put into a sentence. Thanks. Plazak (talk) 11:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Cohesion within a section
Plazak First, I commend you for writing this article. I hope you don't mind my copy-edits. I've been looking at the section Brine mining#Magnesium and magnesium compounds. The section appears to be a series of separate paragraphs that contain just one sentence, or very few sentences, each. I think some could be consolidated into paragraphs. I also think some attempt could be made to put the information into chronological order. I see dates (years) in some of the sentences, which will help with that. I'm wondering whether you have a year for the first sentence. Since when has the company "The Dead Sea Works" been producing magnesium? If we had that information, it would not only say how many years the company has been in operation but would help put the sentences into quasi-chronological order.
Regarding this sentence:
As of 2014, the only producer of primary magnesium metal in the United States was U.S. Magnesium LLC, which extracted the metal from surface brine of the Great Salt Lake, at its plant in Rowley, Utah.
The use of the past tense verb "extracted" in the adjective clause suggests that perhaps the company no longer does that. If the company still extracts magnesium from surface brine, I think "extracted" should be changed to "extracts". If the company no longer does that, perhaps some indication of why should be added. – Corinne (talk) 02:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- You are right that the data are somewhat scattered and bare-bones. Ideally, we should have histories of each major operation mentioned, with starting and ending dates. It may be somewhat of a problem in the case of magnesium at the Dead Sea Plant, because magnesium there is a byproduct of potassium recovery, and the magnesium recovery unit may be operated or not operated, depending on the price of magnesium and the price of electricity. As for the magnesium extraction by US Magnesium at Great Salt Lake, 2014 is the last reference I have. As far as I know, magnesium is still being extracted, but I don't know that for a fact, and I have seen too many outdated facts in Wikipedia wrongly stated in the present tense. Perhaps "was extracting" would be a better verb form. Thanks. Plazak (talk) 12:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)