Jump to content

User:Joedf/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Week 12

[edit]

Finalize edits, article and verify with checklist: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Editing_Wikipedia_brochure_%28Wiki_Education_Foundation%29_%282017%29.pdf

Edits are now live! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bushveld_Igneous_Complex

Week 9, 10, 11

[edit]

Continued work on article draft: Polishing and slowly transfer edits... Work is posted here: User:Joedf/sandbox/draft bushveld

Week 8: Peer review

[edit]

Article Key elements of Quality

  • A lead section that is easy to understand
  • A clear structure
  • Balanced coverage
  • Neutral content
  • Reliable sources

Checklist

  • Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
  • Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
  • Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
  • Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?

Articles Reviewed

Week 6, 7: Drafting changes for "Bushveld Igneous Complex"

[edit]

Work is posted here: User:Joedf/sandbox/draft bushveld

Week 5: editing "Bushveld Igneous Complex"

[edit]

Comments from Sarah It's great that you've identified several aspects that you can improve on this page. It looks like you've taken on quite a bit though so I would suggest you each pick one of the subtopics you mention below and improve upon that. It'll probably be easier to focus on one subsection than trying to fill out a lot of information over the whole page. Bushveld is very well studied so you might quickly find yourself overwhelmed by all the information available to you.

Team

[edit]

Joachim de Fourestier, Marwan El-Ansassy

Importance of topic

[edit]

The Bushveld Igneous Complex is the largest platinum producer in the world. It was very surprising to find it's wikipedia page lacking in various geological and economic information that should be accessible on wikipedia. The goal of this project is to compile as much information as possible from different science articles to enrich the page in more important data.

Thoughts and Ideas

[edit]

What can be changed or improved

[edit]
  • Add Industry, Economy
  • Add Deposits, Mines, Operation
  • Add General Geology, Structures
  • Add Environmental impacts

Potential sources

[edit]

Week 3 assignment

[edit]

Article Evaluation: "Bushveld Igneous Complex"

[edit]

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

Run-on sentences are annoying and distracting! Everything mentioned in the article seems relative to the topic. However, a "Mine Operations" section would add more value to the article. I have mentioned this in the talk page. This section could explain what kind of work is being conducted, by who and how: the type of information one might expect when looking up a well known mining region.

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

Generally, everything seems fine, but it does make one claim that is not supported by a citation: "The complex contains the world's largest reserves of platinum-group metals [...]". Although this may be true, there is no provided citation to my knowledge that supports this claim. The article is written in a scientific neutral tone.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Although the formation processes are somewhat subject to debate, this article does not account for the actually layering process. There is a small mention of Bushveld's layering processes here: Layered intrusion#Causes of layering. In contrast to something like the Columbia River Basalt Group article where the formation section is quite information extensive, Bushveld's could be improved.

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

All the links provided work except for the two "permanently dead link[s]" as mentioned. The references are relevant and references a few books. However, an online reliable viewable source for "UG2" should be available and added. See next answer.

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

In-text citations are not used for each paragraph. A good rule of thumb in Wikipedia is to have a reference for every separate paragraph or so. It is possible that some of the paragraphs' information were obtained from an old book and rewritten in the author's own words. I cannot verify this as I do not have access to this book. Something like this journal article from the reputable peer-reviewed journal Mineralium Deposita would be a good more "up-to-date" complimentary source.

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

As mentioned in the last question, the "old book", most likely the primary source of most of the material in the article, is dated. It is from 1904. That is more than a century. Even though in geological perspective this is insignificant, this can and should be backed by updated and accessible sources.

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

One person is indirectly saying a summary section would add value: to help explain and simplify the main points in layman's terms for say someone who is just curious in general. Another section states some rewriting might be required due to the use of an inaccurate term or name. This is most likely in part because of outdated sources, like say maybe a book from 1904... The work on this area has possibly evolved since the time of writing of the article. Lastly, there is the "mine operations" section as I have mentioned previously.

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

The article is rated "Rated Start-class, Mid-importance". It is part of WikiProject Geology, WikiProject Mining and WikiProject South Africa. I believe this rating is fair as it does not have the elements of a mature extensive article, e.g. Lithium.

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

Bushveld was briefly mentioned in Lecture 1 and 3 which agrees with Bushveld being the world's most "foremost" deposit, but more specifically for platinum minerals. Otherwise, there were only a few mentions about metal-rich sulphides and magnetite layering.

Article evaluation: "Modikwa Mine"

[edit]

Modikwa mine, looking for platinum in south africa, current article seems incomplete...

AngloAmericanPlatinum powerpoint: http://www.angloamericanplatinum.com/~/media/Files/A/Anglo-American-Platinum/investor-presentation/modikwa-facility-visit.pdf

SRK Consulting: https://www.srk.co.za/en/za-modikwa-platinum-mine-empr-amendment

Safety, reported death: https://citizen.co.za/news/south-africa/190129/miner-killed-modikwa-platinum-mine/

Report on Shaft 3: http://www.sahra.org.za/sahris/sites/default/files/heritagereports/AIA_Modikwa_Platinum_Shaft_3_Pistorius_JCC_Nov06_0.pdf

Wiki on Platinum: Platinum

Bushveld + Modikwa possibly

[edit]

Potential source for bushveld formation: https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85035062313&origin=resultslist&sort=plf-f&src=s&st1=The+thickness+of+the+crystal+mush+on+the+floor+of+the+Bushveld+magma+chamber&st2=&sid=14b3db78fba2e6d5140c0c8a15949636&sot=b&sdt=b&sl=91&s=TITLE-ABS-KEY%28The+thickness+of+the+crystal+mush+on+the+floor+of+the+Bushveld+magma+chamber%29&relpos=0&citeCnt=0&searchTerm=

OXFORD: https://academic.oup.com/petrology/advance-article/doi/10.1093/petrology/egx077/4708239

NASA: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=80498

NATURE: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13385

AAP's annual Operations review report 2016: http://www.angloamericanplatinum.com/~/media/Files/A/Anglo-American-Platinum/annual-reporting/operationsreview.pdf

more AAP mine info 2016: http://www.angloamerican.com/~/media/Files/A/Anglo-American-PLC-V2/documents/annual-reporting-2016/downloads/ore-reserves-and-mineral-resources-report-2016.pdf

Mines listing

[edit]

More info on mines in Bushveld: http://www.infomine.com/library/publications/docs/mining.com/sep2008e.pdf

Merensky Reef

[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Merensky_Reef

Article lacks info

Article evaluation: "Platinum"

[edit]

no info on recent decline to gold, but does mention volatlity

https://www.bullionvault.com/gold-news/platinum-price-041020172

http://www.rmbgroup.com/rmb-big-move-trade-reports/

http://charts.kitco.com/KitcoCharts/index.jsp?Symbol=PLATINUM&Currency=USD&multiCurrency=true&langId=EN&zoomFrom=2006-09-03&zoomTo=2017-08-07&names=,GOLD&descs=,Gold%20&byValue=true

http://databank.worldbank.org/data/Au-vs-Pt/id/1489d219 -- graph shows Au price is > Pt and stayed that way since beginning of 2015.

Platinum strike? 2014

[edit]

AAP reports

2014: http://www.angloamerican.com/~/media/Files/A/Anglo-American-PLC-V2/report-builder-2014/annual-report/aa-ar14-interactive-final.pdf

2015: http://www.angloamerican.com/~/media/Files/A/Anglo-American-PLC-V2/documents/aa-ar-15.pdf

2016: http://www.angloamerican.com/~/media/Files/A/Anglo-American-PLC-V2/documents/annual-reporting-2016/downloads/annual-report-2016-interactive-v2.pdf

more: http://www.angloamerican.com/investors/annual-reporting/reports-library

Existing wiki page on strike: 2014 South African platinum strike

info on platinum price drop? https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/platinum/mcs-2017-plati.pdf

https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/platinum/

Chromite + PGEs

[edit]

Chromite can indirectly control fO2, which in turn influences PGEs to occur commonly on chromitite melt boundaries: https://academic.oup.com/petrology/article/49/9/1647/1500884


Impact

[edit]

copied from 2014 South African platinum strike

The strike cost the platinum industry around 1.2 million ounces of production, worth about 24 billion rand ($2.25 billion). Amplats estimated it had lost 11 billion rand ($1.04 billion) in revenue.[1] The company spent about 2.4 billion rand on overhead on mines closed during the strike. Additional losses were expected while the companies paid full wages, but experienced less than full production while production ramped back up. Impant executive commented "This strike has been enormously damaging. It has destroyed the relationships we have with employees, communities, the union and government ... It has resulted in us taking an untold financial impact. ... it could substantially influence the shape of the future business."[2] Amplats said it would consider selling its AMCU mines as it moved its core business to mechanized production, such as the Mogalakwena mine.[2]

As a result of the strike, Lonmin stock fell 21% and Implats stock fell 11%. However, Amplats stock rose 9% during the strike. Stock analyst Edward Sterck of BMO Capital Markets said the market had likely underestimated the damage done to the industry by the strike.[1] Global platinum prices rose 6% during the strike, but prices retreated in early-June when a deal looked imminent. The price of palladium, which is closely tied to that of platinum, rose 15%.[3] The modest increase in the price of platinum was due to a large stockpile of global platinum reserves built up over several years of weak demand.[2] When talks stalled in mid-June, the price of the precious metals again rose.[4]

Should maybe mention, later Pt prices actually even more down....

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference return was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference special was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference imminent was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference delayed was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Joedf/sandbox&oldid=835984460"