Talk:Uranium mining in the Bancroft area/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Reidgreg (talk · contribs) 03:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

GAN review to be forthcoming. I'd appreciate it if you could hold any edits to the article while I'm reviewing it, which will probably take me a few days. I did a light copy edit of the article. If you disagree with any of my changes, we can discuss it as part of the review. – Reidgreg (talk) 03:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I consider all your copy edits to be good. Before seeing this I did make a couple of quite minor and non controversial copy edits to improve reading clarity. CT55555 (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

This is taking me a bit longer than I expected. I'm about halfway through the sources, then I'll do a copyvio check and go through the images and a few other things. – Reidgreg (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. CT55555 (talk) 02:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, full review posted. It's on the long side; please receive it constructively. I've used a checkmark icon () for material which I verified; let me know if you have trouble seeing this or other icons and I'll find another way to mark them. Please continue any further general discussion in the section General discussion at the bottom. This is a bit long so take it a bit at a time. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Second pass review now posted. – Reidgreg (talk) 03:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Third pass was 18 April, fourth pass now posted. – Reidgreg (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Fifth pass, all good. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Criterion

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:MEDRS issues resolved.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Good coverage

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No content disputes detected

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The most-illustrated GAN that I have reviewed. Excellent work with historical pictures.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Passed! Thanks for your hard work and perseverence!

Review comments

Layout

I feel that layout is the most apparent issue with the article and one which should be tackled first. It is part of GA criteria 1b, adherence to MOS:LAYOUT. The specific problem is MOS:OVERSECTION which states Very short sections and subsections clutter an article with headings and inhibit the flow of the prose. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading. The article has about 42 body sections for 3260 words of text, with several sections only 1–3 sentences. Compare to the GA Somerset Coalfield which is of similar length with 20 body sections. Combining some of the sections would allow you to tackle the subject matter in larger chunks, allowing you to make it more concise and coherent. I also feel like some of the material could be reorganized a bit.

Specific suggestions:

• Section Ancient history is speaking in geologic time, I feel that this section should be combined into the top of section Geology and mineralogy. (Also, ancient history usually refers to about 5000 years ago, not one billion years.)

Agreed. Done. 20:26, CT55555 (talk) 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Cheddar granite, Cardiff plutonic complex and Faraday granite: I feel that these short sections would be better presented as a bulleted list (see 'Children' lists at MOS:EMBED).

Agreed. Done. CT55555 (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Section title Mining history before uranium was discovered (1886 to 1922) is rather long. Maybe change it to 'Early mining efforts'. I would tend to remove the year range from the section header but leave them in for now, they can always be removed later.

Agreed. Done, with years left in for now. Also I'm agreeable to remove then, I assume you'll consider that and give advice in the coming days. CT55555 (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC) (This was moved to the top of section Gems and other resources.)

Towards the end of the review I removed them CT55555 (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• Section Gems and other resources, at least the first and third subsections, could probably be incorporated into the early history. The gold rush part might be best first, as that brought interest, surveying, and infrastructure. (I'll make a specific suggestion under Prose, below.)

I agree. I've combined parts one and three. I've not moved it into history yet, I'm open to do so, I suggest I do this for now, see how it looks overall and I'll take your advice after I've done one pass at the review, I'm assuming I'll act on all comments and then you might give more advice. CT55555 (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Have now brought the gold paragraph to the start of that section. CT55555 (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• Discovery of uranium – I was wondering if some of the survey/discovery background and associated biographical information from the later sections on the mines might fit better here. Generally speaking, when the article first mentions a person or entity, it's good to give their names in full, with linking or acronyms if appropriate, and a bit of information to establish who or what they are. On the other hand, it might be better to keep the mine information together, especially if parts are ultimately going to be moved to other articles (see Breadth and Focus below).

All the old sources I've got seem to often never give anyone's full name. So many are just A. B. Smith etc. The red linked Arthur Shore, I expect to become blue soon, I'm waiting on AfC to approve Draft:Arthur_H._Shore and it's taking a long time. So basically I don't have full names for people. So that said, I'm not sure if there is anything else I can do here. Please tell me if I've missed something? CT55555 (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Reading again, I think you wanted me to mention their profession, i.e. they are all prospectors, so I've added that in CT55555 (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• Uranium mining (1952 to 1982) I would suggest expanding the little introductory text before the sections on each mine. The mine sections are fairly long, and in case the reader doesn't want to go through all of that, the introductory part could serve as a summary and also gather any common elements to avoid repetition. I would suggest also incorporating the year range into the text so that it isn't only in the header. Another way might be to have a little table to summarize some of the key information about the mines (perhaps years of operation, the name of the feature they are on [Cheddar, Cardiff, etc.] tons of ore processed, U3O8 produced). For the text, maybe something like: "Uranium mining operations in the Bancroft area were conducted at four sites, beginning in the early 1950s and concluding by 1982. Each of these used underground hard-rock mining methods to access and collect uranium ores from the surrounding granite and gneiss. The mines were:" All of this should be cited.

Edited in your proposed text, and cited it. I've started the table, I'll need to save things and make sure I get it all correct, I'll make sure it's right before sending you a signal to look. Should I add citations into the table? CT55555 (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

:::Update: I've gone back to government sources to make sure the uranium ore/oxide states are correct. Note there is contradiction between the academic paper and the numbers in the paper are not credible, the government numbers are credible and official. So I'm confident in the numbers in the table. CT55555 (talk) 00:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Table is done, it's cited, will need the metric<>imperial thing. I therefore didn't add a sentence to the start of each mine's section. CT55555 (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• Mine sections – I feel that if we tighten up the prose (addressed below), we could probably do away with the subsection headers for each of the mines (e.g.: Bicroft mining operations, Bicroft mine geology). But let's take care of the other issues first and see if this seems necessary.

I'm open to that, assuming we'll come back to this issue. CT55555 (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I think later in the review or your comments below you went back on this, so leaving it for now. CT55555 (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC) (okay, good)

• The influence of global economics, politics and local infrastructure This heading is a bit long. Perhaps change it to 'Economic growth and collapse' or 'Economic effects'? Similarly with the second subsection which might be shortened to 'Decline in demand'.

::Have changed to "economic and political effects". I'm not sure it's the perfect title, but agree it's an improvement. Changed to "decline in demand" also. CT55555 (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Have changed it to "Economic and political influence" CT55555 (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• The legacy of uranium mining (1982 to present day) This header is a bit long. The article title is 'Uranium mining in the Bancroft area' so much of this can be assumed. I would shorten it to 'Legacy (1982–present)' and possibly cut the date range later.

  Have changed to "Mining legacy". Have left date for now, open to changing it later. CT55555 (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  Have changed it to "Legacies" CT55555 (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Some of the subsections are quite short. I would suggest combining the first and second, the third and fourth. The fifth, health legacy, is quite a bit longer and might be moved out to its own L2 section.
• I also feel that the image galleries might break up the flow of the text. Perhaps consider moving them to the end of their L4 sections (where the headers have four equal signs).

Have combined 1+2, 3+4, I feel that health needs to fit under "legacy" otherwise I need to name "legacy" something like "Non health legacy issues", which would be weird. Or do you have a suggestion? For now, leaving "health" under "legacy". CT55555 (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Referencing & verifiability

I went through the references one by one, and was unable to verify a few things. In some cases the source material is quite long and you may be able to point out the relevant passages for me. In others better sources may be required or the material removed. In particular, the Wikipedia community has placed higher standards on sourcing for medical information than other subjects (WP:MEDRS). More on that below as I get toward the parts on miners' health.

• Nila Reynolds, Bancroft: A Bonanza of Memories. Seems reliable enough, and not used for anything controversial. Assume good faith for offline source.

Thanks. I bought the book to write this. CT55555 (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Raymond McDougall, "Mineral Highlights from Bancroft..." Rocks & Minerals, peer reviewed journal.
• A.S. Bayne, Report on Wilson Uranium Property..., professional report, used for quotation only.
• Canadian Institute for Radiation Safety "Radioactive and toxic waste from the Bancroft...". RSS. This pdf does not seem to be searchable, so page numbers would help (in {{rp}} following citations). Verified three citations in the article from page 12 of this source; I didn't spot the one from the lead, perhaps you can find that? Following I will note the parts in the article and in the source, for verification and to check for copyvio.

  See reply below, hope that addresses it? CT55555 (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  I'm wondering if RSS means RSS (i.e. presumably bad) or Reliable Secondary Source (i.e. presumably good)? I'm assuming the later, and that RSS means good. CT55555 (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, WP:Reliable secondary sources. Reliable in that they are expert and trustworthy, and secondary in that they are independent of the primary source and objective. This is somewhat a note to myself; if the source is not an RSS, then I'd have to be extra careful checking for neutrality and accuracy.

  • In Ontario, other than the Bancroft area, uranium is also found in mineable quantities around Elliot Lake and Agnew Lake. I did not spot this in the source.

    I swapped it for two searchable sources just to make everyone's life easier. Hope that's cool. CT55555 (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  • 1929–1931 attempts were made to extract radon from the uranium ore. is covered by page 12: "Various attempts to recover radium from the uranium ore were made in the 1920's and 1930's."
  • in the aftermath of World War II, global interest in mining uranium escalated also page 12: "Following World War II, there was considerable interest in the mining of uranium."
  • [in combination with another source] Madawaska Mines Limited was formed in 1975 and purchased the mine, as well as the Faraday Mine. Mining operations restarted in 1976 and continued until 1982. I did not spot this in the source.

    The info on Grehawk mine is (confusingly) in the paragraph titled Madawaska Mine. That's on page 12 if you follow the page numbering at the top of the page, or page 15 if you are using Acrobat PDF reader.CT55555 (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  • The Atomic Energy Control Board (AECB) issued licenses for uranium mines and mills in Canada, and began regulating uranium mines in 1977. As a result of this, mines that closed prior to 1977 (i.e. Bicroft and Dyno Mines) were able to abandon the sites without any regulatory oversight. Faraday Mine/Madawaska Mine and Greyhawk Mine both resumed mining from 1976 until 1982, so their operation and closure had AECB oversight. also page 12: "Although these mines were licensed by the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada (a Federal agency), the Atomic Energy Control Board did not regulate the operations of the uranium mining industry directly until 1977. [pp] Consequently, two of the uranium mines (Bicroft and Dyno) which ceased operations in the 1960's were allowed to abandon their mining and milling operations without any effort being made to minimize the radiation hazards emanating from the abandoned wastes. [pp] The other two uranium mines in the Bancroft area (Faraday and Greyhawk) were also abandoned int the 1960's but reactivated in 1976 by Madawaska Mines Ltd. That mining operation ceased in 1982."
• Bancroft Historical Timeline This does not appear to be the town website. It says "We are a privately owned and operated website built by the community; for the community." It accepts advertisers and has a mission "to promote local tourism and business development". This may not be a reliable source. It is used for the following statement:
  • As a result of the uranium mining at four mine sites throughout the 1950s, Bancroft experienced rapid population and economic growth. Not verified by this source but will assume it is covered by the offline source also cited; I think a number of the other sources in the article could be used. I would suggest removing this reference from the article.

I've removed it, it's clearly covered in the book, citation 1. AGF

• Canadian Deposits of Uranium and Thorium Griffith, Geological Survey of Canada. High-quality source. About 20 citations to this 357-page report. Although not required at GA, it might not be bad to add page numbers.

  I've never done the page number thing before, so I'll wait for your signal if the way I did it before was correct before doing this. CT55555 (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  I tried the page numbering thing on another article I wrote, but it looked weird, could you add one just as an example and I'll copy that? CT55555 (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

  There are a couple different ways of doing it. A couple sources up, "Radioactive and toxic waste from the Bancroft..." only uses page 12 so you can add |page=12 within the citation template. Using {{rp|12}} right after the ref tag(s) is another simple way, and works better if different citations are using different pages of the same source. A third way, which is more complicated but is more organized if an article uses a multiple pages from multiple text books, is to use {{sfn}} with separate footnote and reference sections.

  • 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. page 1 (introduction)
  • [Bancroft] is one of only a few places in the world and the only area in Canada where uranium is extracted from pegmatitic rock. Source page 11: "The first deposit of this kind [pegmatitic] to be developed successfully was the Bicroft, near Bancroft, Ontario. Production began there in 1956 followed shortly afterwards by production at the Faraday mine, and later by two others, all in the same area." and page 175 "The Bancroft region is the only part of Canada where uranium is produced from deposits of the general pegmatitic class, and is one of the few such places in the world." However, the source is from 1962 and may be outdated. Suggest changing: only area → first area, or adding a citation from a more recent source.

    Well that was fun, I looked it up and found a 2009 source saying that Bancroft is actually the only place in the world where uranium was mined from pegamite rock and it lists the other places where uranium was mined from intrusive rocks (which pegamite is a sub set of) so I now have a more up to date citation and a more powerful statement. I should have known this when this the Do You Know! CT55555 (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC) Good work!

  • The Cheddar, Cardiff plutonic and Faraday granites are discussed pages 177–178.
  • Prior to the 1922 discovery of uranium, mica, feldspar, and other minerals were mined on a small scale in the Bancroft area. page 175
  • at a location first called "the Richardson deposit" and later known as "the Fission property".[6] Between 1929 and 1931 [attempts were made to extract...] also page 175
  • In 1943 [...] the government sent geologists to Bancroft, who concluded at the time that all known uranium despots were unviable due to accessibility, size and uranium concentration. also page 175
  • 1948 saw an increase in private staking of claims for uranium, but due to the difficulties in extracting uranium from lower grade ore, none developed into mines. In 1953 "intelligence prospecting and excellent preliminary explorations" by G. W. Burns and R. J. Steele discovered the Central Lake deposits (which later were developed into Bicroft Mine) and Arthur Shore (whose prospect became the Faraday Mine) led the way successful prospecting. pages 176–177. The quote should be "intelligent prospecting and excellent preliminary exploration" which is applied to all three figures.

    I've made the correction to the quote, did I need to do anything else - i.e. does it seems like I've not applied to quote to all three of them? CT55555 (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC) will address the phrasing under Prose comments

  • Much of the mine history from pages 177 and 179–186.
    • After borrowing a Geiger counter from a Mr Robbert Steele in Peterborough, he confirmed radioactivity and immediately started staking land claims. His slow careful staking disadvantaged him → He brought the samples to Robbert Steele in Peterborough who used a Geiger counter to confirm their radioactivity. The two then formed a partnership and immediately began staking land claims. Their slow and careful staking disadvantaged them ... their work ... they started, etc.

      Have made the corrections CT55555 (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)  Not done Please check this again.

That's weird. Sorry about that. Have done now. CT55555 (talk) 23:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC) Done

• • started diamond drilling, mostly to 100 feet, sometimes to 50 feet. I first thought this was depth (which is rather shallow) but it's actually the intervals at which holes were drilled. So: at intervals of 100 feet, sometimes 50 feet.

    I've made it clearer CT55555 (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  • All other citations of this source for Bicroft Mine section are good.
  • 1957 production or uranium was 405,271 pounds of ore that was 0.0859% U3O8. This differs from page 183 of source "Mill feed for 1957 averaged 0.0859 per cent U3O8, and 405,271 pounds of U3O8 were produced from the Faraday mine in that year." The pound figure is for the refined U3O8; the ore total would have been on the order of 230,000 tons. Suggest: Production in 1957 was 405,271 pounds of U₃O₈ from ore with a grade of 0.0859%. or Ore mined in 1957 had an average grade of 0.0859%, from which 405,271 pounds of U₃O₈ was produced.

    I took your first suggestion. Thanks for suggesting an answer! CT55555 (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  • All other citations of this source for Faraday Mine are good.
  • an ore treatment plant with 1,000 tons-per-day capacity was started in 1956 Source, page 184 says the capacity was 1,100 tons per day.

Good catch, have corrected. CT55555 (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)  Not done I believe you changed a similar passage in Bicroft mine, not Dyno mine. Please check this.

Sorry about that, fixed now. CT55555 (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC) Done

• • All others for Dyno mine checked
  • Thompson and Card found exposed rock in a 60-by-300-foot (18 by 91 m) area. The source, page 186, doesn't say that this was the size of the rock exposure but that this area was found to be radioactive. Suggest: They found exposed rock to be radioactive across a 60-by-300-foot (18 by 91 m) area. or They found a radioactive area of exposed rock which was 60 by 300 feet (18 by 91 m).

    Good catch, have corrected. CT55555 (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  • A shaft was sunk in 1956 and three levels created. The source says only that they began the shaft in 1956. Suggest: An exploration shaft was begun in 1956 and three levels created.

    I have made the correction. CT55555 (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Ownership subsequently shifted to Goldhawk Porcupine Mines Limited. I think this is backwards. Ownership changed from Goldhawk Porcupine Mines Limited to Greyhawk Uranium Mines Limited. Also, the source seems to say that ownership was transferred in 1955... so maybe place this somewhere between the discovery and the shaft.

Yeah, that makes sense, it already was porcupine. I've changed it and made things chronological. CT55555 (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• • The rest for Greyhawk checks
  • BTW, there are nice maps on page 70 and 176 of this source.

    Now that is interesting. I'm a bit too new to Wikipedia to understand how to get them in, it's over 50 years old, I did get this document into Wiki... something. Would love to get good maps into this article. CT55555 (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

    I figured it out and added it. CT55555 (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

    Okay, will check it under Media.

• Ontario Geological Survey Mineral Deposits Circular 25. Uranium and Thorium Deposits of Northern Ontario Robertson, Gould, IAEA. RSS. Found this online at http://www.geologyontario.mndm.gov.on.ca/mndmfiles/pub/data/imaging/MDC025//mdc025.pdf and added link to reference.

  Thanks for the collaboration (and the multiple rounds of copy edits you did!) CT55555 (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Reidgreg (talk) 03:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

  • By 1962 and 1963 the government was buying more than $1,500 million of uranium from Canadian producers for export, but soon thereafter the global supply of uranium increased, prices fell and the government cancelled all contracts to buy. I'm not finding this in the source.

    Sorry, I did the wrong recite, it's in the Geological Survey doc that Yukon Uni hosts, I've corrected the citation. CT55555 (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

    Found on page 11 of that source. However, the phrasing led me to think this was not an annual purchase figure but rather the total purchases to date (or projected, with the years being the years the purchase contracts ended). Also, was all of this for export? (The National Research Universal reactor and Nuclear Power Demonstration would have used a small amount of this.) Suggest: was buying → had bought and remove "1962 and" and "for export". Not done

I missed this earlier. Sorry. I've changed it as you suggested and you make a good point about Canadian use. I'd guess a tiny fraction was used locally, but I can't write this based on guesses, so I just dropped the "for export" part as the surrounding article strongly suggests it's for export and the reader can draw their own conclusions, I think. CT55555 (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC) (slight problem when I proposed a lead rewrite, see below)

• • After mining, the uranium ore was treated in acid leaching plants located at the mines. The leaching process produced yellowcake high-grade uranium compounds which were either processed further at the Port Hope refinery or sold to the US government for processing in that country. Processing uranium ore in Bancroft cost $3.00 per ton. I'm not finding this in the source, though I believe at least part of it might have been in the previous source.

    You are correct, I've added the correct citation. CT55555 (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

    For the last sentence, the $3.00 figure is estimated in the source. I would suggest either adding "an estimated" or removing the ".00" so that it is a round figure of $3 rather than the implied precision of $3.00  Not done

    The rest of that passage has now been cited to Proulx (next below), where I found it on page 61.

• The Uranium MIning Industry of the Bancroft Area Proulx, 1997. This is a master's thesis. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." So I'd prefer a better source for the following:

  Google Scholar gives four examples where peer reviewed scientific papers cite it, which I think is uncommon for a masters thesis, I've seen PhDs with less influence than that. Does that extra info change your mind? CT55555 (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  Update, as I worked to get all the uranium data, I updated other pages, removing citations to this masters thesis. That prompted someone to object, pointing out that the author of the masters thesis is a credible source and works for the Ministry of Natural Resources in Canada. This is easy to verify. CT55555 (talk) 12:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  FLAGGING THIS AS AN UNRESOLVED ISSUE

  Thanks for your further research on this; apologies if it got you into a conflict on the other article. Just doing my due diligence on this one, per that content guideline. From what you've discovered it sounds more reliable than your average master's thesis, though it doesn't seem like she was employed or sponsored by the Ministry at the time she wrote it. Could you link your Google Scholar search results?

Here is my link https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=The+Uranium+Mining+Industry+of+the+Bancroft+Area

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

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. Reidgreg (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

That's a relief, thanks. CT55555 (talk) 15:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• • Bancroft today is known for gems and mineralogy, and has three abandoned mines and one that is being rehabilitated. This is also covered by the Reynolds source, but Reynolds is 1979 and I'd prefer a more recent source for 'today'.

    It would be easy to get more on this, but my easy solution is to cite the 2019 gem paper plus the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (all mines but Greyhawk) and then the government citation on Greyhawk. CT55555 (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  • The success of the mine was due to a combination of factors, and not simply because of Arthur Shore's discovery of uranium. The factors that resulted in economically viable mines were Bancroft's geographical proximity to industrial centers (Port Hope), a good road and rail network I'm pretty sure that there are some other sources which would cover this, if you could add another citation.

    I may struggle with this. I found her analysis excellent, and in the ton (or tonne?) of reading I did, I did not see that anywhere else. If you don't accept my earlier comments about the influence of her paper, this is the first unfixable problem I've found so far. And yet it's an important details. I'll research this thoroughly if you don't think her masters thesis is punching above its weight. CT55555 (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

    FLAGGING THIS AS AN UNRESOLVED ISSUE

    Update, it's partly resolved, as I found sources for all tonage, but she is the only source I've found that points out (the very credible) point that proximity to port hope and the road and rail network were factors CT55555 (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

    Any chance that you could provide a page number for this?

https://central.bac-lac.gc.ca/.item?id=mq21696&op=pdf&app=Library&oclc_number=1006832496 end of page 56 and start of page 57 as printed in the document (PDF reader will show pages 63 and 64

• • The combination of a global decline in demand for uranium [...] combined with the more efficient extraction occurring in Ontario near Elliot Lake

    Reynolds book is clear about the dip in global demand, so I've added that. If you don't accept the masters thesis, I can change to quote the Yukon hosted geological survey docuemnt that describes Elliot Lake as the leading uranium field and describes how rapid and low cost methods of extraction were adopted. But it doesn't compare or mention Bancroft. So maybe I could find words that say the globel dip in demand, coinciding with new low cost extraction methods being found in elliot lake....or I could just drop the elliot lake thing, it's not important, again, depends if you'll reconsider the thesis. CT55555 (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

    I'm open to accepting the thesis if I can confirm it has been cited by reputable sources. Again, I could use a page number.

    I've since found an old newspaper article that added more content now. CT55555 (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• Ontario Uranium Miners Cohort Study Report 2015. RSS
  • Former miners have exhibited a twofold increase in lung cancer development likelihood and mortality rate. introduction page iii
  • A 2015 report on study commissioned by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and undertaken by the Occupational Cancer Research Centre at Cancer Care Ontario tracked the health of 28,959 former uranium miners over 21 years and found a two-fold increase in lung cancer mortality and incidence. table 4 page 35
  • This source has some background on uranium mining in Ontario,
• Geology of the Canadian Sites according to the introduction page here, this was "originally published in the May 1988 issue of the Journal of Geological Education as "Gentry's Tiny Mystery". If this can be confirmed, it may be a good idea to reformat the reference citation to reflect this. I found it republished here in another journal, winter 1988.

  Sorry, you've lost me here. I don't know what you'd like me to do, or how to verify this, please note I don't have access to any scientific paper/library/university sources. CT55555 (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  FLAGGING AS UNRESOLVED

  Sorry, I've come back to this a second time, but remain confused, I'm a bit of a wikipedia newbie, so I'm not disagreeing with anything, just literally confused by what you're saying/asking. CT55555 (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

  (see following)

  • Verified for dates. You might use this source to flesh out some of the other entries, like the Fission/Richardson mine

    I'm confused here still. I should use the http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/gentry/canada.htm source to add content where?

    FLAGGING AS UNRESOLVED

    Let's see if I can explain about the website vs journals. https://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/gentry/tiny.htm is a page someone has hosted on a back page of the website of California State University Northridge. It is a reprinting (of uncertain editorial oversight) and may have introduced copying errors or have actually edited or revised the material (perhaps to suit use as class material). (It's also possible that it was reproduced on the website without permission, and Wikipedia has a rule against linking to copyright violations, though we could AGF.) A version published in a reputable journal will have had objective editorial oversight and been checked for errors. Although they appear to have the same origin, a version from a journal would be considered more reliable. So what I'm suggesting is to rework the {{cite web}} as {{cite journal}} and note a journal where it was published. I spent a little more time comparing them, and the website has substantially different phrasing from https://ncse.ngo/gentrys-tiny-mystery-unsupported-geology (journal of the National Center for Science Education) though the content is remarkably similar. Wakefield may have rewritten the article for this publication's readership a few months after it appeared in Journal of Geological Education. Here is the relevant passage from either source:

    • CSU: The Faraday Mine pegmatites have been dated at between 992 Ma and 1088 Ma by several methods (Easton, 1986a,c). The Faraday Batholith, just to the north, was dated at 1190 Ma. Though no dating of the Faraday gabbro has been done, other gabbros of similar composition, (like the Tudor Gabbro just to the south) in the area have been dated at 1180 Ma (Easton, 1986a). The Silver Crater deposit has been dated at 1000 Ma (R. Gait. Mineralogist, Royal Ontario Museum, personal communication, February 1987), and the Fission mine is closely related to the Silver Crater in age.
    • NCSE (page 21): The Faraday Mine pegmatites have been dated at between 992 million years to 1,088 million years by several methods (Easton, 1986a; 1986b). Though no dating of the Faraday gabbro has been done, other gabbros in the area of similar composition, such as the Tudor Gabbro, have been dated at 1,240 million years (Easton, 1986a). The Silver Crater deposit has been dated at 1,000 million years (Galt, 1987) and the Fission Mine is closely related in age.

    Either supports the material in the article. I feel that NCSE would be sufficient, though the Journal of Geological Education version may be a bit more formal, scientifically.

    So, long story short, I would recommend changing the article source to the NCSE version, after you have read that passage and are satisfied that it supports the material in the article and is reliable. I'd suggest placing a wikicomment with the citation template noting the earlier paper in May 1988 Journal of Geological Education. (Volume 36 no 3 pages 161–175, DOI 10.5408/0022-1368-36.3.161 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315480397_The_Geology_of_Gentry's_Tiny_Mystery ) If you are confident that the website is faithfully reproducing this article, then you can use this as your source. I'm not confident enough to recommend this.

Actually upon reading the original, saying it's about 1,000 years old is too much of a simplification, as other parts are understood (but not confirmed) to be around 1,200. I've changed the source and the words. CT55555 (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and added parameters to the citation template.

• • Oh, the second part about fleshing out some of the background... the full journal paper (or the adjoining website pages) have a little bit on the Fission/Richardson, Silver Crater and Faraday Mines.

Ah, fantastic, I get you know. I've added in some details about exact locations and early 1950's history that were missing. Thanks! CT55555 (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Uranium mines and mills waste CNSC. RSS. Verified 2 citations.
• Uranium Citizens Inquiry This seems to be from the group Environmental Haliburton! and published by Community Coalition Against Mining Uranium. This source seems to be leaning toward activism but what it's used for doesn't seem controversial or biased. Might want to look for another source at some point in the future.

  The masters thesis actually says Bicrot mine employed up to 619 people at peak and cites the Ontario Department of Mines, so I've put a manual citation in, although that's assuming the masters thesis is in good faith, it's published on the federal government of Canada's website, so I'm assuming yes? CT55555 (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  • The mine [Bicroft] employed up to 500 people at its peak.
• Controls on Uranium... Geological Survey of Canada/Natural Resources Canada. RSS. Verified one citation.
• Characterization of uranium and rare earth element mobility This is available without watermarks at Libraries and Archives Canada here. It was also used in a second reference with this url; I've harmonized the two as a single reference. This is another master's thesis. However, it is part of a Geological Survey of Canada study. The Co-Authorship at the beginning notes that parts were intended for journal publication. If this came to pass and the journal can be found, that would be a higher-quality source than the thesis (as the journal gets additional peer review), though I would tend to consider all of this RSS.

  Sorry, what does RSS mean? CT55555 (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  WP:Reliable secondary sources. GA criteria 2b requires reliable sources (and depending on the nature of the material secondary sources are generally preferred). Sort of the same thing as website vs journal above, only this is thesis vs journal. The journal publication is more reliable, a higher quality source. If you go to FAC, they'll want all sources to be of high quality. Here, I would consider both to be reliable but maybe leave a wikicomment at the citation template if a future editor can find the journal.

  FLAGGING AS UNRESOLVED

  I'm satisfied with this for GA criteria; just saying that if it was published in a journal, and if you can find and cite it, that'd be better. But that'a a lot of ifs, and not required.

  • 2,284,421 tonnes of tailings remain on site [at Bicroft] in two impoundments. Verified. Page 86 attributes this figure to (Griffith, 1967; Proulx, 1995). I believe that this is good enough for GA, but ideally, for FA, you might want to find the Griffith source which is higher quality. In the references section of the thesis it is identified as Griffith, J.W. (1967). The Uranium Industry – Its History, Technology and Prospects. Mineral Report #12. Ottawa: Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.
  • The site [Bicroft] is now a wetlands.
• Halburton Echo
• Independent Environmental Monitoring Program Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC)
• Subsurface Investigations and Condition of Dams Golder Associates Ltd, Consulting Engineers
  • The three sources above are used to cite Repairs to the decommissioned site, included adding vegetation over the tailings, were completed in 1980. Subsequent upgrades of the dams was completed in the 1990s. Checks from the first and second is sufficient; I didn't spot it in the third, where a page number would be useful.

Upgrade of dam is mentioned here https://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/resources/maps-of-nuclear-facilities/iemp/dyno-bicroft-madawaska-mines.cfm in the "Bicroft section" quotinn: "...and upgrading of dams in 1990s."

• The CNSC source above is also cited for:
  • 2019 sampling found radioactive and hazardous contamination in two of several water samples
  • Since inspections found improper surface protection of tailing in 2015, the mine has been undergoing rehabilitation Not finding this first part in the source.

    Fair. Probably I didn't cite this well enough, I guess I was thinking if the source said they were fixing it, it implies it was broken. I'm adding in this citation: https://www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/the-commission/meetings/cmd/pdf/CMD21/CMD21-M34.pdf , hopefully that clarifies...it may not...it's not clear to the lay reader. But it says on page 133 that there are upgrades to the tailings (TMA) cover and improvements to the stability of the spillway. I guess it could be argued that just because they are fixing it, doesn't necessarily mean it's broken, but for that to be a credible alternative explanation, we'd need to imagine that the regulator required a company to improve something that was already fine and I guess that's close to impossible. I recognise maybe I'll need to change the words to "the regulator reported improvements"? What do you think? CT55555 (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

    It says "rehabilitation/maintenance work on the [tailing management areas]". Rehabilitation could mean the ongoing planting of shrubs and trees, while maintenance could mean preventative maintenance (which I hope would be common with nuclear safety). So it doesn't really say to me that something was wrong, let alone that an official inspection found a problem.

If I cited page 76 of Proleux, would that back this up? Here's a quote (optical character recognition is poor, so many errors

"In 1987. MadawaSka concluded in its Annual Report: "No. 2 Tailings Area has been stable for thirty years and is considered to have retuned to the

typical background levels of radiation for the area (MML 1988 2-40}. At that time. the AECB undertook a gamma survey along two transects and the readings of 800 to 900 R/hr demonstrated minimal cover on some parts of the tailings area in 1988, its refusal to grant approval to abandon the property- the AECB referred to Locations on the tailings with high gamma readings and sinkholes indicating ongoing stabilization (MML 1989 Appendix 2). In L989. MML resisted assuming responsibility for remedial work on tailings Area No. 1, citing thirty years of growth of indigenous vegetation and placement of cover only on parts of the tailings am as requested by the AECB. In 1990, Madawaska agreed to undertake

remedial work on the No 2 Tailings area. This was contracted to to Break Consultants who removed existing vegetation and placed cover in 1991. In 1993. Red pine seedn,gs were planted on the site and no further work was planned"

CT55555 (talk) 01:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that'd be great! – Reidgreg (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

OK, I've done that now. CT55555 (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Not seeing this citation.?

• • [greyhawk] Mining operations stopped in 1959. Source does not mention Greyhawk or 1959.

    Oops, sorry, deleted that source, Reynold's book cites that, but also added Ministry data so that 99.99% of world who don't own book can verify, lol. CT55555 (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

    AGF for Reynolds, but not finding "Greyhawk" or "1959" in second source.

My bad. Page 192 of Reynolds "Greyhawk running from 1957 to 1959". CT55555 (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC) AGF for offline source

• • Dyno, Greyhawk, and Madawaska Mines are now managed by E.W.L Management Limited[18] [a subsidiary of Ovintiv[35]]. Bicroft Mine is owned by Barrick Gold; the owners of all legacy tailing sites at former mines are responsible for the ongoing management of the sites.[18] Okay except for Greyhawk, which is not mentioned.

    Yes, good catch, because there are no tailings at Greyhawk (all ore went to Madawaska) it's not reported on by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Comission. The source that EWL manage that is here: https://web.archive.org/web/20220105051738/https://gnssn.iaea.org/RTWS/rsls-public/Shared%20Documents/Meetings/2nd%20Workshop,%202014,%20Canada/Presentations/David%20Lye,%20CNSC%20EWL%20-%20May%201,%202014.pdf I've added that in  Not done Not seeing this new source in article.

Hmmm, I guess I had a save error. I've added it in now. CT55555 (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Done

• data from Geological Survey of Canada Miscellaneous Report 39 -- mindat.org This seems to be a RSS and came up in some of my searches; it has an article at Mindat.org. I'm not sure where the title came from; I put it in a citation template with the |title=Madawaska Mine (Faraday Mine).
  • it reopened as the Madawaska Mine in 1975 and production continued to 1982. The shaft into the uranium-bearing pegmatite reached a depth of 473 metres (1,552 ft).
• Cyrtolite at Mindat.org
• Ontario MIneral Inventory - Greyhawk Geology Ontario, Ontario Ministry of Northern Development, Mines, Natural Resources and Forestry. RSS, first two citations checked.
  • 200,000 tons of ore, averaging 0.065% U3O8, remain in the ground at Greyhawk Mine. I feel that this should reflect that the mineral reserves are an estimated figure. That's a statistical figure, an estimate based on explorations, but you can't say for certain how much ore at what quality until you take it out of the ground. Suggest preceding it with "An estimated" or "Reserves of".

    Thanks, I took your second suggestion. CT55555 (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)  Not done

Have fixed. Assume a save error from before. CT55555 (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Done

• Greyhawk Mine, Faraday Township, Hastings County, Ontario, Canada Mindat.org. used as a second citation for the statement Faraday Uranium Mines Limited purchased the site in 1962. However, I don't see where this source says anything about "faraday uranium mines" or "1962". It's not needed, so I would suggest removing it unless you find it useful to cite something else in the article.

OK easy fix, I've removed it. CT55555 (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)  Not done

I've tried again. CT55555 (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)  Done

• Ontario Mineral Inventory Record MDI31D16NE00166: Kemp Single source for Kemp Uranium Mine.
  • Located at latitude: 44° 59′ 53.22″, longitude: −78° 9′ 42.15″, the Kemp Uranium Mine, sometimes called the Kemp Property or Kemp Prospect, produced uranium and a world-class specimen of thorite between 1954 and 1955. Good except for the underlined part, which I did not find in the source.

    "Kemp Prospect" seems to be the name that the mineral collectors use and it's in widespread use in low quality sources. I found this today, so added that in, but using a better url. I deleted reference to kemp property. CT55555 (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

    I may have been too picky about that; things which are generally verifiable don't need to be cited unless they're likely to be challenged. (I prefer that they are cited, but it's not in the criteria.) I wonder if this nomenclature simply signifies the activity on the property, whether it's a claim, a mine, or a decommissioned mine/rehabilitated land?

I get the impression that in the early days of all mines, people were quite casual about calling them "XXXX property, XXXX prospect" and that things got written down later. I assume not much uranium was produced, otherwise there would be more records, and so I assume there wasn't much to decommission, I've been able to find so much more about the others. I consider the name in the article not controversial - but have made an edit to just call it "Kemp" which covers all bases, I think. CT55555 (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Don't worry about this, Kemp Uranium Mine is fine. Reidgreg (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

• Report of the Royal Commission on the Health and Safety of Workers in Mines 1976. Would it make sense for the citation template to have |author=Royal Commission on the Health and Safety of Workers in Mines? Page numbers would also be useful for the 376-page source, which can be a bit awkward to search. Cited 6 times.

  Sorry, my wikipedia skills are holding me back here, I'm part confused. James Ham is the engineer who led the commission and wrote the report. So I'm not sure what change you want, he is the author. Did I do the citation wrong? Or are you saying the commission is the author? Also, I've still not figured out how to do the page numbers, is it a double{} thing after each citation? CT55555 (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  James Ham is the commmissioner of the RCHSWM. I thought that the report is the work of the commission, written collectively by the seven people on its first page (and possibly others). (I mention page numbers above; may do this myself.)

  I see your point now. I have always considered (and I created the Royal Commission on the Health and Safety of Workers in Mines article) him to be the author, but I never really critically reflected on why. I think it's because page 10 of the archive of it has a cover letter in which he describes it as "my report" and I've read a lot of health and safety documentation that always referred to him as the author, and the architect of modern health and safety legislation in Canada. OF course, that could all be wrong. So I'm not sure. I see no problem with changing the author to the commission, I doubt we could find anything that would explain the division of duties between the team. What is relevant (or at least interesting) is that Canadian commissions tend to be known by their nickname, I think always the name of the author, and this one is known as "The Ham Commission" [[1]] CT55555 (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  Well, I doubt there's going to be any confusion about it.

  • Before going into verification, I should point out the WP:MEDRS issues. Medical claims should either (a) be cited to a high-quality medical source, preferably from the last ten years or so, or (b) cited to another high-quality source with clear inline attribution, e.g.: "According to the 1974 Royal Commission study...". Here are the medical claims in question:
    • Uranium mining produces silica-laden dust and the health risk to miners is correlated to the amount of free silica in the uranium ore.

      I've rewritten this, quoted a <10 years old Nature paper that is explicitly clear about this CT55555 (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC) Not done

      That's annoying, but I've redone it now and saved it. CT55555 (talk) 02:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

      Okay, this is the British Journal of Cancer, accessed via the website Nature. Done

    • Of those 15,094 people, 94 silicosis cases were found in 1974, of which one was attributable to working a Bancroft mine, i.e. the other 93 were attributable to working in an Elliot Lake mine. For this I changed: attributable → attributed to make it clear that this was in the past, at the time of the study.

      Thanks CT55555 (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

    • Mines produce radon gas which can increase lung cancer risks. If you don't want to search for a recent medical source, a rephrase would probably suffice.

      I added a good source (and maybe figured out the page thing, will edit above comments soon) CT55555 (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC) Not done

I've re-added it. CT55555 (talk) 02:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)  Done

• • Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited was the crown company that purchased all uranium oxide in Canada and it entered into contracts with mine owners at fixed prices. page 85
  • Employment of miners in Bancroft started in 1955, peaked in 1958 at around 1,600 jobs. Is this taken from the chart on page 34? Maybe mark the citation with. It looks about right.

    Yes, that was my source, added that. CT55555 (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC) Not done

I think you kindly added it for me since then CT55555 (talk) 02:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)  Done

• • In the 1970s, the scientific community was making connections between uranium mining and silicosis in miners. Uranium mining produces silica-laden dust and the health risk to miners is correlated to the amount of free silica in the uranium ore. Whereas the uranium mines in Elliot Lake produced ore with a free silica rate of 60 to 70%, the dust from the miners around Bancroft had 5 to 15% free silica, thus presenting some risk to miners, but much less than that of the Elliot Lake's uranium mines. In 1974, the Ontario Workmen's Compensation Board studied 15,094 people who worked in uranium mines in Bancroft and around Elliot Lake for at least one month, between 1955 and 1974. Of those 15,094 people, 94 silicosis cases were found in 1974, of which one was attributable to working a Bancroft mine, i.e. the other 93 were attributable to working in an Elliot Lake mine. I found some of this from page 18 of source. I did not spot (a) the correlation of the amount of free silica to miners' health risk, or (b) the study of 15,094 people. Page 43 talks a bit about dust levels but I don't see it making that connection. Page 62 footnote 23 mentions "some fifteen thousand" persons with a month exposure in Ontario uranium mines.

    I've added a peer reviewed paper linking silica exposure and lung cancer (note I changed "dust" to "exposure" to make this more bullet proof, noting the higher bar you mentioned. Not done

    Page 108 of the document (or page 126 in PDF reader) talks about the 15,094 people Good, should add that page number.

    I've redone this section. Note to self: It may need more work CT55555 (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

    It is fixed and saved now. CT55555 (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

    I'm satisfied that this meets the GA criteria now. Done

  • Mines produce radon gas which can increase lung cancer risks. Miners' exposure to radiation was not measured before 1958 and exposure limits were not enacted until 1968. Risks to miners at Bancroft and Elliot Lake mines were investigated and the official report of that investigation quotes a miner: I didn't spot this.

    I've added new content, Note to self: It may need more work CT55555 (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC) Not done

    Fixed now CT55555 (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Done

  • "We have been led to believe through the years that the working environment in these mines was safe for us to work in. We have been deceived." Page 77
  • The aforementioned 1974 study of 15,094 Ontario uranium miners found 81 former miners who died of lung cancer. Factoring in predicted lung cancer rate for men in Ontario, led to the conclusion that by 1974 there were 36 more deaths than expected attributable to both Bancroft and Elliot Lake mines, with the additional risk being twice as high for Bancroft miners compared to Elliot Lake miners Page 84 states "There is statistical evidence based on samples that for persons who ever worked in the Bancroft area mines the risk of lung cancer has been 2.2 times that for persons who never worked at Bancroft." I'm not sure if that means 2.2 times greater than those who worked at Elliot Lake or 2.2 times greater than the general population. Page 324 states: "it appears that men with any period of employment at Bancroft have experienced a lung cancer risk about twice as great as that for men who have worked only at Elliot Lake." I feel that "appears" isn't strong enough for a conclusion of the study. I'm not sure if the numbers of miners were pulled from the table on that page or elsewhere.

    I've redone this section, made everything more robust. CT55555 (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC) Not done

    I've cited it better. I note the "it appears" from the source, so I've replicated that through to the article. Hope that's OK? CT55555 (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Done

• Report on The Caring for Kids on Cardiff Research Hospital I'm not sure about this. It looks like an independent research project by a doctor of education, prepared for the Point in Time Centre. It isn't used for anything controversial. It has a list of references but I'm not sure which might be used for the information below.

  Do you need me to do something about this? I think the Reynolds book also covers this, but in less detail.CT55555 (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  I think it's sufficient.

  • Housing for miners was quickly established around the mines and in nearby Bancroft village, which extended to cover four square miles. Other construction quickly followed, including, two single-men's bunkhouses, a canteen, an eleven-room school, an ice-curling rink, and a recreation center. In 1957 a swimming pool was started. Page 10 of source: "A section of bush was cleared in 1956 to build 200 homes for a new wave of ‘settlers’. In the late 1950’s two ‘suburbs’ were added: Bicroft Heights on Inlet Bay on Paudash Lake where the Bicroft mine executives lived and Dyno Estates near Hwy #28 south of Cardiff for the executives of the Dyno mine [...] When the mines were in operation Cardiff contained 2 bunkhouses for single men, a food preparation center, a large curling rink with 4 surfaces, a legion hall and recreation centre. The municipal office was located in the basement of one of the homes. In 1957 a heated swimming pool was built partly with labour and materials furnished by the mines and partly by volunteer labour. An 11-room school opened in the fall of 1956."
  • Dyno Mine ran out of uranium ore in 1960. Page 10 of source: "The Dyno mine closed in 1959 when it ran out of ore."  Not done Ah, I didn't actually say to do anything, but either you should have the article match the source or else find another source.

Have updated CT55555 (talk) 02:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Done

• Mineral Deposit Inventory Record MDI31F04SW00037: Faraday, Madawaska" Ontario Geological Survey
• "Record of Proceedings. Request for Exemption from Licensing the Greyhawk and Agnew Lake Closed Uranium Mines without Tailings" CNSC.
  • Greyhawk Mines tailings were processed at the mill located at Madawaska Mine, leaving no tailings on site. As a consequence of this, the primary hazards that are regulated are present only at Faraday/Madawaska Mine, and resulted in ongoing environmental monitoring by AECB's successor organization, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC). The first sentence is on page 3 point 10 of source. I'd allow the next clause for following it logically. But the underlined part (that the tailings at Madawaska were monitored) needs another source.

    I wrote it in a confusing way, I've tweaked it and and think the change will make it clearer and make it clearer that it's in the source, I added the page number. Not done YResolved

• Rockhound Gemboree Bancroft Township website. Primary source but non-controversial.
  • After the closure of the mines, the various tailing sites attracted mineral collectors, especially to an annual "gemboree" in which tourists travelled to Bancroft in search of gems and minerals. I would probably change an annual "gemboree" → the annual Rockhound Gemboree.

    Thanks, I've done that CT55555 (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)  Not done

Done now !!!! Done (I removed the italics)

• • If you want to add a RSS for the above sentence, I found the following: {{cite news|title=Three festivals in the Kawarthas among top 100 festivals in Ontario|date=1 March 2019|work=Kawartha Now|location=Peterborough, Ontario|url=https://kawarthanow.com/2019/03/01/three-festivals-in-the-kawarthas-among-top-100-festivals-in-ontario/}} which I think gives a good indication that it's a prominent festival.

    Thanks, I've done that. CT55555 (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC) Not done Done

• Uranium exploration plan stirs health fears The Globe and Mail
• A Study of Uranium in Ground Water... N This is a bachelor's thesis and generally no good per WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

  I've looked at a little further into this source and on page 20 it references other, more reliable studies:

  • Ontario Water Res. 1965, found Greyhawk mine groundwater discharging SW to a stream contained about 106 pCi/l of Ra-226.
  • Norse, 1971, found this water had 90–250 pCi/l of radon and 1.6–2.7 ppb uranium.
  • Ministry of Environment, Bentley Creek, further downstream, contained 1–50 ug/l (microgram/l = ppb by mass) uranium and 1–7 pCi/l radon.

  I would find it acceptable to cite the bachelor's thesis for the above information, if that is of any help (there is fuller detail on them in the references section at the end of the thesis). – Reidgreg (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• Origin and subsurface migration of radionuclides... Atomic Energy Control Board report. I think the url should be changed to the source itself at https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/16/041/16041292.pdf?r=1 rather than the introduction page; this works better for archival purposes. The source is 314 pages so page numbers would also be useful. It (along with the above source) are cited for the following:

  • I've made the change, but created an error (sorry, still learning wikipedia here) Note to self, fix this link CT55555 (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

    Looks like you fixed it.

  • 1978 and 1980, studies found that the natural weathering of the granite and gabbro rocks left at Greyhawk Mine has caused uranium leaching into the aquifer at concentrations ranging between 1.2 to 380 parts per billion, with higher concentrations measured deeper in the water table and in sediments. Perhaps a case of not seeing the forest for the trees, but I did not spot this in the source.

    FYI, this also mentions previous studies beginning page 22

• 3 decommissioned uranium mines near Bancroft, Ont. seemed protected Global News
  • Subsequent inspections in 2020 from nearby locations reported no contamination. Not according to the source: "The study concluded that samples were within accepted government guidelines. Sediment samples indicated “little to no” environment impact and were within screening guidelines. There were just two water samples that were above guidelines. // The study said results were “slightly above” the Ontario provincial drinking water standard (20 micrograms per litre) but were “well within” the range of safety margins incorporated into the development of the standard."

    Sorry, you are correct. I have changed the article to say "....reported water quality to be within provincial standards" CT55555 (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Cancer incidence and mortality from exposure to radon progeny among Ontario uranium miners The BMJ high quality source per WP:MEDRS
  • The BMJ (journal of the British Medical Association) reported an increase of lung cancer risk; miners who have worked at least 100 months in uranium mines have a twofold increased risk of developing lung cancer.
• "Are Canadian uranium workers still more likely to die from lung cancer?" Canada's National Observer.

New sources (11 sources added since 23 January):

• Ontario Mineral Inventory Record MDI41I05NE00009: Agnew Lake Mine, Canadian Thorium Corporation Ltd. Property used once for Agnew Lake in lead
• Elliot Lake wildcat strike led to key law used once for Elliot Lake in lead
• World Distribution of Uranium Deposits (UDEPO) with Uranium Deposit Classification International Atomic Energy Agency, 2009. Used in two places
• Geology of Uranium Deposits - World Nuclear Association AGF used once as a secondary reference
• GEOSCAN Search Results: Fastlink used for tonnage of ore at Bicroft
• Deposits of the Pembroke-Renfrew Area used in four places: all checked
• [Ontario Mineral Inventory Record MDI31D16NE00032: Canadian Dyno, Dyno Mine, International Mogul|url=http://www.geologyontario.mndm.gov.on.ca/mndmfiles/mdi/data/records/MDI31D16NE00032.html Ontario Mineral Inventory Record MDI31D16NE00032: Canadian Dyno, Dyno Mine, International Mogul] used in two places, Dyno mine stats in table.
• Ontario Mineral Inventory Record MDI31F04SW00036: Greyhawk Mine, Greyhawk
• Ontario Department of Mines 1958 annual report – AGF for offline source
• "Area's Future Uncertain Wihout Mine" via Newspapers.com Ottawa Citizen. Page 7. 22 March 1982. (Correct year in article.) AGF for four uses in section Decline in demand
• Consolidated Canadian Faraday Limited 1980 Annual Report used once for The price of uranium dropped from around US$44 per pound in 1979 to US$23.50 per pound in March 1982.. pdf is not searchable, so page numbers would be useful. Found on page 4: "Uranium prices have been in a steep decline since mid-1979 ... of approximately $44.00 US to the current level of $25.00". Please confirm that Ottawa Citizen (above) covers the difference or change to $25.

Yes, I quote from that article "Current world price is about $23.50 per pound in U.S. funds, down from a high of $44 about three years ago" (statement March 22 1982) CT55555 (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC) AGF

Prose

• During the ice age, in what is the Bancroft area today – This is the first mention of Bancroft in the body, so it should be linked with the province given. Suggest: "in the area of what is now Bancroft, Ontario," (make sure to include the comma after 'Ontario'). Also, suggest changing: ice age → most recent ice age and pipe a link to Wisconsin glaciation.

  I think you fixed this yourself as a copy edit, and I agree. Not sure where I should add the link to the Wisconsin glaciation though, as "precambrian" is already linked and that was where I was assuming... CT55555 (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  I'd swap it with the link to ice age (generic). I'll go ahead and do this.

• The volcanic eruptions spouted through sediments → Volcanic eruptions had spouted through the sediments

I have correct. CT55555 (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• recrystallizing them into layers of banded gneisses including limestone, graphite, gabbro and diorite, rich in iron and other dark minerals. Which of the examples does 'rich in iron and other dark minerals' apply to? This could be rephrased to clarify.

  I don't know, to be honest, initially I had quoted these parts and someone else helpfully jumped in and rewrote it, their user name and edits suggested they understood geology. If this is a deal breaker, I could tag them and ask a favour, will ask for your comment before doing so as assume this is maybe a lower priority suggestion? CT55555 (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  Okay, I think I found your original from November 2021: The volcanic eruptions spouted through sediments recrystallizing them into layers of banded gneisses including limestone, graphite, gabbro and diorite producing iron and other dark minerals. I believe that clears up the meaning for me. If I have this right, producing opens a new clause which applies to all that came before it. Limestone is sedimentary and not a gneiss, so the list are not examples but other contents of the 'layers' along with the gneisses. Here are a couple ways I'd rephrase it:

  • recrystallizing them into layers of banded gneisses – incorporating limestone, graphite, gabbro and diorite – rich in iron and other dark minerals
  • recrystallizing them into layers of banded gneisses rich in iron and other dark minerals, limestone, graphite, gabbro and diorite.

  Do those make more sense??

I find that agreeable, I've edited to include the first one. CT55555 (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC) ? not done

Done now CT55555 (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• The ore mined in Faraday Township (i.e. Faraday Mine/Madawaska Mine, and Greyhawk Mine) is between 992 million and 1088 million years old. The Cardiff rock, sometimes called the Silver Crater or Fission property in earlier writing (i.e. Dyno Mine, Bicroft Mine) is 1,000 million years old. I feel that the distinction between 992 million and 1088 million years won't have much meaning for most readers, and that this whole part could be summarized as "Uranium ores in these structures are about 1,000 million years old." Add that to the end of the preceding paragraph. (This would also avoid the problem of having to define the mines at this early stage of the article.) If you feel that it's important to keep this information, it can be relegated to a footnote with {{efn}} and a Notes section before the references which gathers footnotes with {{notelist}}.

Honestly, I found it kinda fun that someone had calculated like this, it seems like one of the more interesting bits of trivia in here, but I'm not married to it, happy to round off to the nearest billion years, ha ha. I've edited it down as per your suggestion CT55555 (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• In Canada 99% of known uranium occurrences and 93% of properties producing uranium are on the Canadian Shield, almost all on the western and southern edges of it. Add a comma after the first 'Canada' and link Canadian Shield. If you don't feel it's too much of a stretch, you could also pipe 'properties producing uranium' to uranium mining in Canada.

I agree, I've done that. CT55555 (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Located northeast of the Cheddar granite, I think this can be removed, particularly in list form, as the list introduction already states they are ordered southwest to northeast.

Agree, done CT55555 (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• • Similarly with Located northeast of the two other granitic complexes,

Agree, done CT55555 (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Prior to the 1922 discovery of uranium, mica, feldspar, and other minerals were mined on a small scale in the Bancroft area. It might at first appear to the reader that uranium is the first element of an inline list 'uranium, mica, feldspar, and other minerals'. There's also some ambiguity with the discovery of uranium as an atomic element (which happened much earlier). Suggest removing the first clause altogether as a rephrase would get a bit wordy. Actually, let me take a run at the whole combined section:
  • Suggest: "Finds of gold in nearby Madoc, Ontario, (then known as Eldorado) from 1886–87, inspired many to seek gold around Bancroft. Surface gold was found in October 1897 by R. Bradshaw, 20 miles (32 km) southwest of Bancroft (towards Bobcaygeon). This triggered a rush of prospectors to the area. Iron and magnetic ores were mined from 1882, gold, copper and mica from the late 1890s, and marble from 1911. More than 1,600 identifiable minerals and non-metallic collectibles can be found in the area, including 175 species of gemstones." I think this hits the important points. If you want to include the gemstone list or the factoid about the ROM floor, those could probably be footnotes.

    I've changed the words as you said. Asking if you'll reconsider the list of gemstones and the ROM thing as footnotes, it seems to me to be interesting and quite a lot for a footnote. I don't have a strong opinion about this. CT55555 (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

    I think best to address this under Breadth and focus, below.

• Uranium was first discovered in the area of Cardiff in 1922 by W. M. Richardson I think keep the full "Cardiff, Ontario," or possibly "Cardiff, southwest of Bancroft," – or alternatively the Cardiff link could be given with the Cardiff plutonic complex.

I added Ontario. CT55555 (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC) added comma per MOS:GEOCOMMA

• In 1943, in the aftermath of World War II, global interest in mining uranium escalated, The war was still ongoing in 1943, so I don't think we can say "aftermath". Suggest: during World War II. Also, I would put a sentence break after 'escalated'.

-1 point for my history grade there, have made the changes. CT55555 (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Burns, Steele and Shore were three of one hundred area prospects were established in the Bancroft area between 1953 and 1956. Not quite sure what this is saying. Were they 3 of 100 uranium prospectors, or were their prospects 3 of 100 claims made?

Yeah, I wrote that badly. I've checked the book and rewritten it more clearly and also chronologically. CT55555 (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• a well studied amateur prospector from Peterborough Need a comma after Peterborough.

Done CT55555 (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• found deposits near Cardiff township, 10 miles southwest of Bancroft, near Paudash Lake. Can we rearrange to avoid the two 'near's? Suggest: found deposits 10 miles (16 km) southwest of Bancroft, near Cardiff township and Paudash Lake.

Yes, agreed, done. CT55555 (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• In an 18 December 1955 letter to the Geological Survey of Canada, Burns wrote of his interest in minerals and rocks, his purchase of property in Cardiff, his research in Peterborough Public Library, superficially a book Prospecting for Uranium and Thorium in Canada published by the Geological Survey of Canada. Was looking to rephrase this but now I'm not certain it's relevant. He can be assumed to be interested in minerals and rocks, it later talks of his property claims, and the book doesn't seem important. Perhaps remove this?

  Just to clarify, remove the words, or just the book? CT55555 (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  I'd recommend removing the entire passage and continuing with: A book prompted him to inspect a property near Centre Lake (between Cheddar and Cardiff), where he observed purple rocks which he knew to be fluorspar, an indicator of radioactive geology.?

OK, I've done that. CT55555 (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)  Not done?

Have done now CT55555 (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• a Mr Robbert Steele in Peterborough I think just 'Robbert Steele'.

OK, I've changed it. CT55555 (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• what the Geological Survey office If this is first occurrence, link and provide acronym: Geological Survey office → Geological Survey of Canada (GSC)

  I've corrected the name, the first mention is linked, I've added the acronym. Do you want me to swap the other mentions for the acronym? CT55555 (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  That makes sense; it only seems to appear in that paragraph. Yes, please proceed with that.

OK, I have done that now. CT55555 (talk) 19:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• a subsidiary of Macassa Mines Limited formed in 1953. They discovered uranium north of the original site. Need a comma after 'Limited' and suggest joining the sentences: formed in 1953 and discovered

Agreed, done. CT55555 (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• The mine employed up to 500 people at its peak. I feel that this would be better worked into the paragraph which follows it, which summarizes overall activity of the mine.

  Agreed, done. CT55555 (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• The two small paragraphs at the end of the section could be combined.

  Done CT55555 (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  I've reworked it a bit more to be chronological and to put the ore and tailings figures closer together.

• Further drilling the following year identified more uranium up to 500 feet underground Suggest: Further drilling the following year identified additional deposits to a depth of 500 feet.

  Done CT55555 (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Since inspections found improper surface protection of tailing in 2015, the mine has been undergoing rehabilitation. → In 2015, inspections found improper surface protection of the tailings and the site has been undergoing rehabilitation. (This could probably be incorporated into the end of the Madawaska Mine paragraph.)

  I've made the edit, but disagree that it could be included above on the basis that the above is about the mine when it is operation. That said, you've also said to reduce sections, so maybe in that context it will fit in. Flagging as only partially unresolved. CT55555 (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  I see what you mean. Changing the section titles may be the way to go. I've had articles which changed their title because they gathered material that changed their scope. What would you think of a single paragraph like:

  After $7 million of investment to modernize the mine, it reopened as the Madawaska Mine in 1975 and the shaft into the uranium-bearing pegmatite was extended to a depth of 473 metres (1,552 ft). During this period, the mine was producing 1,500 tons of ore per day. The mine closed in 1982. In 2015, inspections found improper surface protection of the tailings and the site has been undergoing rehabilitation. ?

I find the words agreeable, I am just still resisting merging the two paragraphs because it seems to me that every mine section is subdivided into obvious chapters, and the decommissioning chapter is chronologically, ownership-ly and operationally distinct between the second period of extraction and the rehabilitation period. So I understand why you want to avoid having a section with one sentence, but it seems intuitive to me that we should keep them apart. Of course, you are the reviewer, and in the end, if that is your final decision, I will respect it and make the edit. CT55555 (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

From MOS:OVERSECTION (part of the layout requirement of the GA criteria): Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading. It does say 'generally' though, and it's a minor issue. I'll allow it as there is potential to expand it.

• At the Faraday and Madawaska mines, lens-shaped bodies of ore occur In an earlier section, the term "lenticular dykes" is used (lenticular meaning 'lens-shaped'). It'd probably be best to use one form throughout the article. If you think it needs explanation, it can be defined in a parenthetic on the first occurrence, though I feel the link to lens (geology) is sufficient.

  I prefer simpler language, so have changed the other one to "lens-shaped" CT55555 (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  There's one more lenticular in Bicroft.

I have fixed that now. CT55555 (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• After mining, the uranium ore was treated I feel that this paragraph should be moved up from geology to mining operations for Greyhawk. Some of the short paragraphs could also be combined.

  Agree, done. CT55555 (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• In the economic growth section, there are some short paragraphs. I would tend to rearrange this with one paragraph about the mine's success followed by another about the workers. Suggest: Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited was the crown company that purchased all uranium oxide in Canada; it entered into contracts with mine owners at fixed prices. Faraday Mine alone produced $54 million of uranium ore, creating a rapid economic boom. The mine succeeded due to a combination of economic factors, including Bancroft's geographical proximity to industrial centers (Port Hope) and a good road and rail network. [paragraph break] Employment of miners in Bancroft started in 1955 and peaked in 1958 at around 1,600 jobs. Mine workers unionized in 1957, forming Local 1006 Bancroft Mine and Mill Worker's Union. Housing for miners was quickly established around the mines and in nearby Bancroft village, which extended to cover four square miles. Other construction quickly followed, including two single-men's bunkhouses, a canteen, an eleven-room school, an ice-curling rink, and a recreation center. In 1957, a swimming pool was started.

  Perfect, thanks for putting that work in! I've used it. CT55555 (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note that I changed the piped link State-owned enterprise → Crown corporations of Canada, which is more specific.

    Excellent, thanks! CT55555 (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• The combination of a global decline in demand for uranium (specifically the cancellation of a contract to buy by Agip) combined with the more efficient extraction Don't need both combination and combined. Suggest: A global decline in demand

  Nice one, thanks, have changed. CT55555 (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• closed the remaining mines in 1964 destroying the local economy → resulted in the closure of the remaining mines at Bancroft in 1964, jeopardizing the local economy.

  done. CT55555 (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)  Not done It looks like this was removed – was this intentional? I thought it served to link with lobbying efforts to keep the mine open.

  These words remain in, ad the end of the "decline in demand" section. I changed it to your words. CT55555 (talk) 03:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)  Done

• Local catholic priest Rev. Henry Maloney, whose two brothers were former Ontario Ombudsman Arthur Maloney, and Minster of Mines James Anthony Maloney, led the community to demand support from the Government of Ontario and Government of Canada to extend the contracts for buying uranium. Canadian Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, relying on an old agreement with the United Kingdom to buy uranium from Canada, was able to prolong the life of the mine by eighteen months, giving the community enough time to plan for the closure. → Local catholic priest Henry Joseph Maloney (brother of former Ontario Ombudsman Arthur Maloney and Minster of Mines James Anthony Maloney) rallied the community to demand support from the provincial and federal government. Canadian Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, relying on an old agreement with the United Kingdom to buy uranium from Canada, was able to prolong the life of the mine by eighteen months, giving the community time to plan for the closure.

  done, thanks for rewriting it. CT55555 (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  The underlined portion is not there. What would you think of keeping the 18 months part??

I added that in, I had excluded it in error. While doing so, I also saw your note in the article "need something here about the mine's reopening in the 1970's" so I added a few words, now sure if I should cite them, as it's repeating what is already cited above? CT55555 (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks; the reopenings are cited above and that there was an energy crisis is generally verifiable.

• Whereas the uranium mines in Elliot Lake produced ore with a free silica rate of 60 to 70%, the dust from the miners around Bancroft had 5 to 15% free silica, thus presenting some risk to miners, but much less than that of the Elliot Lake's uranium mines. The mines around Bancroft had a free silica rate of 5–15%, presenting some risk but much less than at the uranium mines around Elliot Lake which produced ore with 60–70% free silica.

  Thanks, have done CT55555 (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• In 1974, the Ontario Workmen's Compensation Board studied 15,094 people who worked in uranium mines in Bancroft and around Elliot Lake for at least one month, between 1955 and 1974. Of those 15,094 people, 94 silicosis cases were found in 1974, of which one was attributable to working a Bancroft mine, i.e. the other 93 were attributable to working in an Elliot Lake mine. → In 1974, the Ontario Workmen's Compensation Board studied 15,094 people who worked in the province's uranium mines for at least one month between 1955 and 1974. 94 silicosis cases were found in 1974, 1 of which was attributable to working a Bancroft mine while the other 93 were attributable to working in an Elliot Lake mine.

  Based on earlier comments about citations, I've rewritten this section, so this comment is no longer applicable CT55555 (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  Gotcha. Also, I realize that my rephrase is inaccurate, as it assumes there are no minor mines elsewhere in the province. Sorry about that.

• Factoring in predicted lung cancer rate for men in Ontario, led to the conclusion that by 1974 there were 36 more deaths than expected attributable to both Bancroft and Elliot Lake mines, with the additional risk being twice as high for Bancroft miners compared to Elliot Lake miners. → This was 36 more deaths than expected from provincial lung cancer rates, with the additional risk being twice as high for Bancroft miners compared to Elliot Lake miners.

  Likewise, I've redone this sentence already. CT55555 (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  Those verifiability-related changes don't appear to be in the article (see above). There's the question of what the 2.2 factor meant, though this does avoid the study-conclusion problem.

Is this resolved? You need me to do anything else? CT55555 (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I believe this is resolved. Sorry

• A 2015 report on study commissioned by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and undertaken by the Occupational Cancer Research Centre → A study report for the CNSC undertaken by the Occupational Cancer Research Centre

Thanks, done. CT55555 (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Making another copy-edit pass of the prose:?

• while others understood to be 1,200 million years old → while others are understood
• In Canada, 99% of known uranium occurrences This single-sentence paragraph should be combined with other material, probably in the paragraph which follows as it mentions other global locations (while the rest of the section is specific to Bancroft).
• Bancroft, known as the "Mineral Capital of Canada"[11] and is only of only five major locations → Canada", is one of five major locations
• Same sentence: from intrusive rocks, the others being I feel like you need stronger separation here than a comma: either a semicolon or a dash.
• Section gems and other resources: I believe that I proposed the second paragraph to replace the first; you don't need both.
• I think you added some to this sentence and it runs a bit long. Uranium was first discovered in the area of Cardiff, Ontario, in 1922 by prospector W. M. Richardson[1] at a location first called "the Richardson deposit" and later known as "the Fission property"[4]: 175  located two kilometers east of Wilberforce on the property know as lot four, concession 21 of Cardiff Township.[9] Suggest a sentence break after Richardson and then: His find was first called the Richardson deposit, and later the Fission property,[4]:175 and was located two kilometres east of Wilberforce on lot four, concession 21 of Cardiff Township.[9] (Note Canadian spelling of kilometre.)
• Another run-on sentence: In 1953 "intelligent prospecting and excellent preliminary exploration" by G. W. Burns and R. J. Steele discovered the Central Lake deposits (which later were developed into Bicroft Mine) and Arthur H. Shore (whose prospect became the Faraday Mine) led the way successful prospecting.[4]:176–77  I feel it's cramming too many ideas together and should be split topically. Here is one way of doing it: In 1953, "intelligent prospecting and excellent preliminary exploration" by G. W. Burns, R. J. Steele and Arthur H. Shore led successful prospecting of the area. The former two discovered the Central Lake deposits, which were developed into Bicroft Mine, while Shore's prospect became the Faraday Mine.[4]:176–77
  • On second thought, the one-sentence paragraph which precedes this would fit nicely in the middle of this paragraph. So you'd have the sentence "In 1953" as constructed above, then "Between 1953 and 1956", then the third sentence could be "Burns and Steele discovered the Central Lake deposits, which were developed into Bicroft Mine, while Shore's prospect became the Faraday Mine."
• There's another one-sentence paragraph which begins "1948 saw an increase". Suggest tagging this onto the end of the paragraph which precedes it.
• As mentioned earlier, I feel that the sentence In an 18 December 1955 letter to the Geological Survey of Canada (GSC), Burns wrote of his interest in minerals and rocks, his purchase of property in Cardiff, his research in Peterborough Public Library, superficially a book Prospecting for Uranium and Thorium in Canada published by the GSC. doesn't add anything and should be removed. Hopefully you've addressed this above.
• their work paid off and he started mining I think they started mining, as they were partners.
• also known as the Tripp property and also known as the Montgomery property I think you can remove the second 'also known as'.
• According to a 2012 study published in Nature Italicize the name of the journal.

All done CT55555 (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Breadth & focus

Since four of the five mines have their own articles, ideally we'd want to migrate a lot of the information from those sections to the articles on the mines, and have the sections in this article tight summaries relevant to the overall subject. However, I feel that's beyond the scope of the GA criteria.

Thanks. I agree. But that's also a big task. I think I'll serve wikipedia best by first getting this article up to quality, then later getting the other four up to C or B standard and then editing this down. That's going to take time. CT55555 (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

For Greyhawk Mines, I feel that it could include from page 186 of Canadian Deposits of Uranium and Thorium that both the tonnage and grade of ore were below that indicated by surface drilling, which would help toward explaining why the mine shut down after only two years. Suggest something like: Operations uncovered no high-grade ore deposits, leaving the average grade below that of other Bancroft mines. The tonnage of ore was 30% less than feasibility estimates. – I think if you add that right before "Mining operations stopped" readers can draw a likely conclusion without a source explicitly stating it.

I've added both those sentences, but at slightly different locations, assuming you approve. CT55555 (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I approve, though I'd move that single-sentence Mining operations stopped in 1959 up to the end of the preceding paragraph, possibly with a minor rephrase.

I've moved it and make a tweak to the wording (added "subsequently") as I think that reads better. CT55555 (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The source Ontario Uranium Miners Cohort Study Report mentions, on page 3, four other mines in the Bancroft area: Blue Rock, Cavendish, Nu-Age and Tory-Hill. These were probably minor mines, and may not have produced notable quantities of uranium. I feel that it would be worth investigating for sources on these, and make small expansions if reliable secondary sources can be found. (If RSS can't be easily found, then the GA criteria won't require coverage.) Cursory search:

• http://www.geologyontario.mndm.gov.on.ca/mndmfiles/MDI/data/records/MDI31D16NW00199.html
• http://www.geologyontario.mndm.gov.on.ca/mndmfiles/pub/data/imaging/OFR5311//OFR5311.pdf
• https://www.geologyontario.mndm.gov.on.ca/mndmfiles/mdi/data/records/MDI31D16SW00099.html
• http://www.geologyontario.mndm.gov.on.ca/mndmfiles/MDI/data/records/MDI31D16NE00143.html

I've added Blue Rock and Nu-Age (i.e. Old Smokey). Cavendish is far away, not really "Bancroft Area" about 100km away and also it seems that exploration was done, but nothing mined. Tory Hill is geographically close, but there is nothing notable about them, despite having a name that is easier to search. CT55555 (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate this extra work! – Reidgreg (talk) 03:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I was wondering if it might be worthwhile to note somewhere that the mines which reopened in the 1970s did so in the context of the 1970s energy crisis? Perhaps this could go just before However, by the 1980s, uranium demand was again down You wouldn't be able to state a causal relationship without a source, but you could state that there was an energy crisis and then state that some mines reopened, and readers can make the connection themselves. (I feel that there was an energy crisis in the 1970s is readily verifiable and its existence as an event doesn't need a citation.)?

I think this is great, it fills in a part of the story that I only just realized was missing. Of course this changes the "decline in demand" section into decline and increases. Should I change it to "Demand for uranium"? CT55555 (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The section header could be something very generally like Decline, growth and decline. Alternatively, Response to global demand could work, but it seems a bit like a teaser, making you read to see what the demand and response were. It doesn't quite fit a boom-bust business cycle.?

Done CT55555 (talk) 00:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the gem lists and marble buildings: I recently had a spirited discussion with a couple editors about inclusion of trivia. 'Trivia' is a bit of a trigger word on Wikipedia, like 'vandalism', and has been used for the wholesale removal of content. However, the importance of information is relative and subjective, and Wikipedia includes lots of notable trivia. When considering inclusion, a good gauge is the information's relevance to the article topic. My first inclination was that the marble floors of the ROM and the gemstone list were at least once-removed from 'uranium mining in Bancroft', and weren't necessary to a summary of the article subject. However, I don't think it's that bad of a thing to have at the end of a section, and goes a way to including some of the galleries. I won't hold up the review on it.

Thanks. I agree, they are one step removed. If this was "extraction in the bancroft area" they would be in scope. I could have started the article that way, but I didn't, as such an overwhelming amount of what was extracted was uranium. If wikipedia is a place to learn, I see this serving a good function, directing people about other topics, a bit like a "see also" section. So while I'd accept it if you insisted I remove it, I like that we can keep it in, I think it increases human learning without detracting from the article. CT55555 (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality

Some minor tone issues covered elsewhere in review

Stability

Although there were some recent-ish interest in renewed mineral explorations, no new uranium mining activity has been initiated and it is a mature topic which with no content disputes detected in the article.

Media

All 23 images tagged with free or creative commons licences. The interactive map is generated through Wikimedia maps and OpenStreetMap, so I assume it is not a problem.

GA criteria 6b requires media [to be] relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

• The two images in the lead are a century apart, with the period when uranium mining was conducted roughly in the middle of that. It'd be nice if there was an available image from the period when uranium mining was underway, but we work with what we have. I would say to keep the 2009 image as the lead image, and move the 1910 image down to where the article talks about iron mining and marble quarrying.

  Done CT55555 (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  I see the 1910 image at the early mining history and the 2009 image at mineral legacy, both good. I really appreciate the new, period image for the lead, good find!

• Several of the mineral sample images credit the photographer. This is generally not done in captions; clicking on the image takes the reader to the file page where the photographer, if known, is credited, along with other image information. MOS:CAPSUCCINCT (required by GAN6b) recommends no superfluous or needless words, aiming at no more than three lines of text.

  Have removed photographer's names CT55555 (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• I don't feel that the cover of the publication Canadian Deposits of Uranium and Thorium adds anything to the article, and recommend removing it.

  done CT55555 (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• A hair-like cluster of acicular uranophane crystals perched nicely in the middle of a matrix plate, mined from Madawaska Mine. Recommend removing the underlined words for conciseness and tone ('nicely' being a subjective opinion).
• Two sharp, brown, octohedral uraninite crystals to 0.9 cm aesthetically perched on red-brown orthoclase matrix from Bancroft Suggest removing the underlined words for conciseness and tone ('aesthetically' being subjective) and add a comma before 'from'.
• Emplaced in orange calcite is a lustrous, black, octahedral crystal of uraninite, 0.7 cm across which has been twinned and penetrated by another uraninite crystal. From Bancroft. → A lustrous, black, octahedral crystal of uraninite on orange calcite, from Bancroft
• An Ontario miner pushes a cart of radium ore c. 1930 The file page says this is from the Northwest Territories.

  Have made all edits and noted that the miner is Canadian, not Ontario. CT55555 (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

More captions:?

• Betafite, Zircon collected from Silver Crater Mine (the old name of Bicroft Mine) near Bancroft → Betafite, zircon collected from Bicroft Mine
• Uranpyrochlore, zircon sample collected from the MacDonald mine in Bancroft *rarr; Uranpyrochlore, zircon collected from MacDonald Mine, Bancroft
• Fluorite sample collected in 1974 near Bancroft collected by Bob Whitmore → Fluorite collected near Bancroft
• Grossular, diopside collected from the York River Skarn of Bancroft → Grossular, diopside collected from Bancroft
• Yellow cake uranium, the solid form of uranium oxide produced from uranium ore → Yellowcake uranium concentrate produced from uranium ore

Done CT55555 (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

You experimented with {{Multiple image}} in Faraday/Mining operations. Unfortunately, the template is fixed-width and when you have four images side-by-side it can break the sides of the margins on smaller screens (try narrowing your browser window to see). I'd suggest reducing the image size, putting them 2×2 instead of four in a row, or go back to a gallery (which most browsers will automatically adjust for window width).

I've done it. CT55555 (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Doing another check for new images.

• Four new images, all tagged with free license and illustrative of accompanying text.
• I cropped the Arthur Shore image so it just shows the picture, without the newspaper text. I added a bit to the file description. If there was any other information from the newspaper article, please add that as well, it's good to have a thorough description.
  • It's okay now, but for a while it was displaying the original image scaled to the size of the cropped image – really weird! I tried manually purging the article page but it took about a day for it to sort itself out (perhaps the problem was actually my browser cache?).

Sadly the image I had of Mr Shore was already cropped, so I don't have more info. Thanks for your work on that. CT55555 (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Even more new images:

• The two period pictures of the Madawaska Mine entrance are licensed and relevant. I moved them down a bit to avoid image overcrowding.

Yet another new image:

• The Caterpillar bulldozer is a nice bit of mining operations.
• Henry Maloney picture – the fair use is good for the Henry Joseph Maloney article, but it may be a stretch to include it here as well. This is not my area of expertise, however, and the licensing information is on the page as required.

Another new image: [:File:Uraninite in Pegmatite (48002874171).jpg]] – confirmed CCbySA2.0

Lead

Since we're pretty sure about the article content at this point, I think we can start tackling the lead. I'd like the lead to be in very good shape, as it's the first thing people read – and tends to be the first thing people edit as well.

Assuming everything that appears in the lead is also in the body of the article (which it generally should be), inline citations are only required for quotations and material likely to be challenged.

• The discovery of uranium near Bancroft resulted in what was described by engineer A. S. Bayne in a 1977 report as the "greatest uranium prospecting rush in the world" Good for quote, but the report says that the prospecting rush was triggered in "1953, when Centre Lake Uranium Mines Ltd. started underground development".

I'm going to go ahead and try a rewrite of the lead for MOS:LEAD compliance (GA criteria 1b). I'll be aiming for easy to read prose which clearly and succinctly serves as a summary of and an introduction to the article, organized in two or three paragraphs. Again, the GA Somerset Coalfield may serve as an example.

Uranium mining in Bancroft represents one of two major uranium-producing areas in Ontario and one of four 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". Mining activities were conducted during two periods, 1956–1964 and 1975–1982, when uranium prices made underground hard-rock mining of the ores economically viable.

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 $1,500 million of uranium from Canadian producers for export, 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 was not long lasting. Bancroft continues to be known for gems and mineralogy, and has three abandoned mines and one that is undergoing land rehabilitation. A negative impact has been a twofold increase in lung cancer development and mortality among former mine workers.

What do you think??

I like it. I added it in. I made a few tiny tweaks (commas, new paragraphs) and changed four to seven (after counting up the areas, it's two other provinces, but they are sub divided). And I rewrote the last sentence. CT55555 (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Looks good, though I seem to have contradicted my own advice by putting "for export" back in. (Perhaps you could remove that?) More importantly: an article of this size should have a lead of two or three paragraphs (MOS:LEADLENGTH). So you're going to have to get those five paragraphs down to three, however you wish to combine them. – Reidgreg (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)?

I edited out "for export" and combined the sentences to make a total of 3 paragraphs. CT55555 (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Other areas to improve

Please ignore this until the points above are addressed. Although not part of the GA criteria, here are some other areas you might eventually want to improve:

• Articles should express measurements in both metric and Imperial units. This article has a mix of each. Choose one as the primary system for the article (typically metric for Canada) and use {{convert}} templates to supply the other with formatting. If you want, I can take care of this after the nomination is closed.

  I've never done this, I'd love it if you could, also I assume we'd do this last, once everything else is water-tight CT55555 (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• The map in the article might also include Cheddar, Ontario (now a ghost town within the township of Highlands East, Ontario). One of the maps in the sources outlines the Cheddar granite, Cardiff plutonic complex and Faraday granite; it'd be a bit of work, but creating a map that outlines these features along with the locations would be quite illustrative for the article.

  I've added Cheddar, but have no idea how to add drawings etc. CT55555 (talk) 02:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Standardize the references a little more for FAC (particularly the date formats).

  I'm happy to do this, but can you please be more specific? Is there anything other than dates? And which date format is best? CT55555 (talk) 02:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Reference tidying is about organizing it a bit so it's easier to work with. Like making a uniform system of names for the references (rather than the auto-generated ":1" types). Authorsurname-year or institution-year are often a good way to go, or maybe use the title or purpose, just so long as they aren't easily confused.

Another big part is using the appropriate citation template. If you're researching via the Internet, most of your sources will have websites but often there will be a better template to use than {{cite web}}. I've mentioned a couple where cite journal is better. For GEOSCAN Search Results: Fastlink, it'd be better to use {{cite report}} with the url https://gac.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/GAC-MAC-2013-program-with-abstracts.pdf and page=157 (where the information is at the bottom). When you do use cite web, note the difference between |website= and |publisher=. If it's an online news source or magazine, use website; if it's an institution like a government website, use publisher. (Hint: website applies italics while publisher does not). Read through the parameter use in the documentation of the citation template and make sure you're using them appropriately.

Dates: When there are multiple valid styles, MOS generally says to go with the 'established style' of the article – meaning that it's your choice as the article's creator and primary author. Sometimes the established style will be changed with major rewrites, such as here at a GA review, or otherwise after considered discussion. Because the article is about Canada, we will generally use Canadian English and metric. Other styles like date formats and whether to use serial commas are up to you. I personally like dmy dates with the month written out. These are non-ambiguous, and they avoid the MOS:DATECOMMA issue that inevitably comes up with mdy dates.

At the FA level, images should have |alt= text for accessibility. While the caption explains context and relates the image to the text, the alt text describes the image itself. (more at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Alternative text for images).

For the article map(s), consider placing a request at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop. There are all kinds of specialist editors on Wikipedia, and these folks know everything about maps. They can tidy up that map as a scalable SVG, colourize it, add or remove features, and advise on any copyright issues (probably not a problem; you can copyright a map but you can't copyright the information on the map, so when they make a new one it will have a free license regardless of the original). Just make sure you know exactly what you want and clearly state your request (with sources as applicable).

General discussion

You can post any general questions or discussion here. If you have any questions about the specific points above or want to discuss them (and feel free to disagree with me), please post such following the appropriate bullet point above. Try to preserve the list formatting and talk page conventions to keep it tidy and so it's easy to mark our progress. When you've finished making changes to the article, please let me know here and I'll check through your changes. Reviewers usually give 7 days for changes to be made to meet the criteria, but I'll probably go as long as a month since this is your first GAN and the review is fairly long. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I've done a first pass at everything. I've overwhelmingly agreed and there's just a couple of points I have pushed back on, none with strong disagreement, none major (other than the following). The only thing that I've disagreed with that seems important is the acceptability of the Master's thesis. My arguments for that are above . I should do a second pass before you review my actions, but before I do so, I have a question and that is about my over sectioning. I've cut it down a little in the first pass, but I assume you recommend more wholesale changes and assuming I'm correct about that do you recommend that I merge the "geology" and "operations" sub sections for each mine? Any other obvious merger points? I'm thinking the health section doesn't need sub sections. Maybe it would be fairest on your time if you answered these points and then I'll act on that and give everything a second pass. @Reidgreg: CT55555 (talk) 02:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@CT55555: Just answering your question about the sections. I think the broad-strokes part of the layout are good. I like your addition of 'Other mines'. Everything's pretty much grouped together in a way that makes sense. I think I've come around and feel that the operations/geology parts work. I'd had an inclination to introduce the geology first and then get about how they dug into it to get the ore. However, those geology parts use a lot of specialized scientific language while the operations part is more accessible to the general readership, IMHO, so I feel that it fits the summary style concept of giving the overview first, followed by more detailed information. I'm not opposed to the subsections in health; it seems good to have some division there for the separate subtopics. The one I would definitely want to change is to get rid of the paragraph under 'Early mining efforts (1886 to 1922)' and use that header for the section now titled 'Gems and other resources'. And perhaps moving some things into footnotes (you may have addressed that in the review comments). I also keep thinking about different ways of placing the images (like maybe putting the uranium ore picture together with the yellowcake picture, or moving some of the gem gallery down to the gemboree text) but I'm not a real 'picture person' and don't have firm opinions about this. – Reidgreg (talk) 02:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Reidgreg:I've deleted that section and also combined "uranium discovery" with "uranium mining" since the former had only a few lines. I've deleted the dates for the top level sections, but kept them for mines where there were two mining periods. The gallery style of pictures isn't perfect, but when I put them on the right, they didn't fit. When I put them on alternative edges it looked unprofessional, this was my third approach and I think the best of an imperfect bunch. I'll review this again at the end in case the layout changes create more opportunities (they might). Obviously I need to give all the questions a second pass. I'm also keen to hear your thoughts about the Master's thesis, if you don't accept it, then I some major changes will be needed, I hope you will based on my arguments above. Those arguments are 1:a quick google confirms the author is a government official in a relevant department, and 2 the masters thesis is actually cited in published academic work, which I think is uncommon and demonstrates it has the abnormal influence that Wikipedia needed for us to consider it acceptable. CT55555 (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@CT55555: The GA criteria for images are only (6a) that they are appropriately licensed and (6b) that they are illustrative and not merely decorative. Those gem and mineral pictures, for the most part it seems to me that they're only illustrative for the list of gems found in the area and I'm not sure that's even relevant to the article's topic. "The designer has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."^[1] But I don't feel strongly about it and don't want to make it a point of the review. The rest looks interesting. Let me know when you're finished making changes and I'll take another thorough look at the article. – Reidgreg (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: OK Phew, I've done as you asked on about 99% of these, I think I have one disagreement, a couple of requests for you to reconsider, and a few points where I'm confused. I'm getting slightly overwhelmed with my own inline commenting and this process has taught me a few things so far, but also shown me the limit of my skills. Note: I'm working in visual, am not skilled in sourced editing. If you are able to present this to me as a new list of actions for me to do, that would be appreciated, of course, I'll work with the next batch of feedback in what ever format you make it. All the best and thanks for your work on this. CT55555 (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'm in the middle of a couple editing drives right now and will try to get to this next week. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, recent events and such. I'm going to start going through your notes/replies and all changes to the article since my review. This will likely take a few days. Please hold any editing to the article until I'm done. Thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

No problem at all, I welcome the delay, I do better than a take breaks between major tasks and have too been distracted. Please don't feel time pressure from me. I will not edit until your signal. CT55555 (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the extra work you've done on the article, finding new images and sources where needed.

I could not find some of your changes in the article. Is it possible that they didn't save? I marked these with  Not done.

I made some non-controversial direct edits to the article: A bit of tidying, some page numbers (not everywhere), convert templates, and I played around with one table a bit. I hope I didn't introduce any errors.

I'm pretty sure I've forgotten a few things but I'm losing a bit of focus over some of this and best pass it back to you. I think we're getting pretty close. I've suggested a few things, notably a rewrite for the lead. – Reidgreg (talk) 03:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@CT55555: Glad to see you were able to restore your lost edits. It happens to the best of us. I've marked most of those  Not done with  Done, but there are still a couple outstanding and some ? spots that need attention. Back to you. – Reidgreg (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@CT55555: Some of your edits didn't stick. For example, this edit undoes some of the changes you made. I've switched to ? to mark the spots needing attention. – Reidgreg (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Status query

Reidgreg, CT55555, where does this nomination stand? The most recent edits to the article were made on 9 March, will more be made soon? Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I need to do some edits and will do some soon. CT55555 (talk) 20:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@CT55555: I'm working on a peer review now. When I finish, I can check the changes you've made so far if you want – or otherwise hold until you make additional edits. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I had read the article so much that I was dreaming about it, I needed a break from it. I'm back at it now and working through your comments. CT55555 (talk) 01:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

OK. I've reviewed everything with the big red X. Clearly some of my earlier edits did not save (face palm) but it should be good for your next review. Thanks in advance. CT55555 (talk) 03:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi User:Reidgreg, I don't want to rush or hassle you, as you waited much longer on me (sorry about that), so just a gentle verification that I should wait for your next steps? CT55555 (talk) 13:27, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, I missed your 8 April comment. I'll get started on this today. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2022 (UTC). Back to you. – Reidgreg (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I've responded to everything, but I think (am not sure) most of the feedback under "Other areas to improve" remains unresolved. If I understand you correctly, I should wait for the majority of that to be fixed before tackling that section. Thanks again for all the effort you are putting into improving this article and my work. @User:Reidgreg CT55555 (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Reidgreg ping, just in case you missed it CT55555 (talk) 13:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, a bunch of other reviewing landed on my plate. I'll try to hurry so I can get to the important stuff. –  Reidgreg (talk) 16:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Please don't feel any rush from me. CT55555 (talk) 16:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I believe we're almost there. – Reidgreg (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I've responded to everything in your fourth pass. Sorry for the long delay. I write better when I take breaks away from things. CT55555 (talk) 00:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Pinging Reidgreg so they know that the edits have been made. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I did make a post on their talk page. But also I took about a month to respond to the fourth round of feedback, so I feel a bit reluctant to rush someone who has done so much already considering how long they have been patient with me. CT55555 (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

May be a few days before I can get to this. Reidgreg (talk) 12:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@CT55555: Read through everything here and gave the article another pass (for minor copyedit). I am satisfied that it meets the GA criteria. Passed, Congrats! – Reidgreg (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you User:Reidgreg, I appreciate your patience and diligence in this process. This was the first GA nomination I attempted and it has been a learning journey. But it has also felt like a collaboration and mentorship. I'm very happy that we got to this point. All the best. CT55555 (talk) 17:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)