User talk:MeggyPenny/sandbox

Reviewing an article: Room and Pillar mining

Clarity - Some of the sections are not particularly strong

    - The introduction spends more time talking about mining related to room and pillar than room and pillar.

- Mentions "same method as "bord & pillar" but does not explain of link to anything about "bord & pillar"

Structure - Mentions "two stages" then only lists one - many mentions of similar types of mining, but not elaborated upon - take out the "retreat mining" section and work it into a section about how room and pillar mining happens. Will still include a link to the retreat mining article - Revise the sections to

     1. Introduction 
     2. Process
         2.1 
         2.2 Mine Layout
     3. History
     4. Modern Use
        4.1 Advantages 
        4.2 Dangers 
     5. See Also

Balance of Coverage - this article is too short, and does not provide any information on either pro/con side of the argument. In expanding this article, more information about the advantages and dangers to room and pillar mining, would be appropriate.

Neutrality - the page is appropriately neutral for it's length. It mentions in the "retreat mining" section that it is particularly dangerous, but this is the only statement that could be interpreted in even somewhat of a negative way. It is true though, and the statistic cited appropriately.

"Talk page"

- the only comment on the talk page suggests that "retreat mining" page be merged with the "Room and Pillar mining" page. While retreat mining can and often is a part of room and pillar mining, it is not always. Due to this and retreat mining's particularly dangerous nature, I think that it deserves its to keeps its own page.

Sources - The references section is separated into "notes" and "bibliography", which is strange. - as far as I can tell, the "bibliography" section should be a part of the see also / further reading section

Suggestions for improvement - need to discuss placer deposits and explain relevancy - need to reorganize and add more content in general! There is a lot more that can be said. - the references section needs cleaned up. - I don't think any part of the article is particularly strong; The whole article needs to be better cited, and would benefit from more information.

MeggyPenny (talk) 03:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC) MeggyPenny (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steph's Peer Review

Room and Pillar Mining

Good project choice, the article is starting class and high importance. The talk page suggests to merge Retreat mining and room and pillar mining, however what you plan on adding to the article will be plenty informative on its own, the two articles can simply refer to one another. The lead section is well developed, it summarizes important topics that will be discussed. It mentions material that is extracted with this mining technique and geological bodies that are best suited for this method, this would be a vital section to include in the article. Aside from this aspect the coverage of the article is well balanced, each important factor will be discussed and are organized in a clear structure. The tone is neutral so far, but be careful when discussing advantages and disadvantages. Some environmental papers can have a very biased opinion opposing mining and economic papers can have a biased opinion for not taking ecology/hydrology into consideration. Citations are also reliable, methods for mining appear to be neutral. Stephbender (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]